A Voice of Reason, Published Each Friday from the Capital of Liberalism

251 posts categorized "Politics"

February 26, 2015

Back to Sun Tsu and The Art of War: Victory begins with a profound understanding of your adversary. With the Somali Islamists threatening to attack American shopping malls as they did in Nairobi last year, and the President refusing to utter the phrase "Islamic terrorism", it is no wonder that the portion of Americans who believe that we are winning this war is down to 15%.

This week's highlight, Rudy Giuliani's comments at a New York fundraiser for Scott Walker:

“I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that this President loves America. He doesn’t love you. He doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up to love this country.”

“I don’t (see) this President as being particularly a product of African-American society or something like that. He isn’t. Logically, think about his background. . . The ideas that are troubling me and are leading to this come from communists with whom he associated when he was 9 years old” referring to close family friend Frank Marshall Davis, an outspoken communist. Add to that his Kenyan father and Indonesian step-father, Reverend Wright, Saul Alinsky, and Bill Ayers it is easy to see how the casual observer might come to that conclusion.

The usual suspects - CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC - have gone crazy: obviously racist; a bitter old has-been; must be overtly rejected as a litmus test for any Republican presidential aspirant. Darrell Issa and Bobby Jindal have received a brief headline for supporting Rudy. Others have cautiously abstained.

But there really is something strange going on here - while reasonable people can disagree on how much socialism we should have, and his African-American constituency loves his and Eric Holder's anti-police rhetoric, Obama's handling of ISIS is a complete mystery. Consider:

- Only months before they took over a third of Syria and Iraq, President Obama - with all of the intelligence available to the Western world - called ISIS "the JayVees," continuing the narrative that the war on terror was in its final stages with the killing of Osama bin Laden.

- Obama insists on using the term ISIL (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) instead of ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which everyone else calls them.) Chuck Todd opines that calling them ISIS would require more definitive action in Syria. Whatever, now they have affiliates offering allegiance in Yemen, Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and Afghanistan and they have taken to calling themselves the global Islamic State.

- In November former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking for a large portion of the military leadership, noted that President Obama had provided a mission of "degrading and destroying" ISIS without providing the necessary authorizations. Obama has subsequently asked for Congressional approval for his six-month old program of air support, but no fundamental change to operations in Iraq or Syria in a proposal that the Washington Post called "weak and unnecessary."

- In what even leftist commentator Bill Maher calls "Orwellian" language, Obama refuses to acknowledge recent violence in Iraq, Syria, Paris, Amsterdam, Canada, and elsewhere as Islamist, but offers the myth that it is "violent extremism" unrelated to Islam, and attributes the problem to poverty and a lack of opportunity - ignoring the fact that many recruits are coming from the West.

- Needing to do something, Obama last week convened a conference in Washington to discuss "violent extremism", inviting law enforcement leaders from around the world including the top cop from Russia - but not the head of the FBI. In Obama's headline opinion, ISIL may be committing atrocities, but so did the Christian Crusaders.

The reality is that we have two problems to live with for the next two years.

1. Giuliani is correct that Obama really does have a different world view. Read his autobiography, Dreams from My Father; watch Dinesh D'Souza's documentary, America. Wealth should be spread around; American society is unequal and racist; third world countries still suffer from European, now American, imperialism. In 2008 and 2012 a majority of people voted for change, his background was available to those who looked, and elections have consequences.

2. Obama is an incompetent executive. There are times when this is bad - the decision to not leave a residual force in Iraq; the trade of five Taliban leaders for an Army deserter; the insistence on trying war criminals in civilian courts; a disinterest in negotiating budgets with Congress; the "open borders" immigration policy; the roll-out of ObamaCare. But it does seem that the national security establishment is now forcing some good decisions - the new Secretary of Defense apparently will be able to keep a small fighting force in Afghanistan well after the previous deadline and in a combat role; there will apparently be a few "boots on the ground" in Iraq - not as many as the Iranians, but at least a few.

Obama will play out his game before the responsible adults can restore common sense. Hopefully that won't mean Hillary who, equally detached from reality, doesn't think it matters whether folks attacking US diplomats are terrorists or "just a bunch of guys out for a walk."

-----

There are two conflicting videos this week - Eric Clapper (the Director of National Intelligence) saying that 2014 was a record year for terrorist violence, and John Kerry (Secretary of State) saying that we are living in a period of reduced threats to Americans. Alice and the Looking Glass come to mind.

February 19, 2015

Amid the Democrats' furor about Income Inequality there is a huge, obvious gap in the discussion. It exists; it is becoming greater; it is largely a result of globalization and technology. So, what can be done? One major, obvious answer is education reform, but that offends the teachers' unions so no Democratic politician dares go there. Into the void come Jeb Bush and Common Core with national standards and funding on the one hand, and Scott Walker with a record of state-level reform on the other.

At first blush, people think of Walker in terms of being a union-buster (good among conservatives, but not among the broader public). The more lasting question, with potential presidential implications, is why the people of near-purple Wisconsin elected him three times. Much of the answer lies in his education reforms, and the speed with which they have obtained results.

At the heart of Walker's agenda is the premise that government workers were taking too large a slice of the tax pie before delivering services to the public - particularly schools. Among the broad provisions of Act 10, of 2011:

- Public employees must pay 50% of the cost of pensions and at least 12.6% of the cost of healthcare;

- Pensions for elected officials and appointees were reduced;

- Bargaining rights for public employee unions were limited to wages, with increases limited unless approved in a referendum;

- Union membership for public employees became optional and payroll deductions for union dues were eliminated;

- Collective bargaining for the University of Wisconsin faculty was eliminated;

- Existing General Obligation bonds were restructured;

- Additional funds were allocated for Medicaid, the Department of Corrections, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The immediate effect was to reduce costs for the local school districts, particularly those where union contracts required that healthcare be provided by very expensive contracts with the union-affiliated Wisconsin Education Association Trust. In systems like Milwaukee where projections had healthcare and retirement costs doubling in the next decade, a future crisis was averted. In the first year, school districts across Wisconsin hired a net 1799 teachers, and reversed trends by holding or improving class sizes, extracurricular programs, and student fee requirements.

Walker's FY2016 budget contains further financial and philosophical changes which will appeal to conservatives:

- Funding for the University of Wisconsin, which employs half of the state's 70,000 workers, will be reduced by 2.5%, or $300 million over the next two years. In exchange, the chancellors are freed from much legislative oversight giving them the ability to adjust programs, manage costs, and raise tuition.

- The requirement that school districts utilize Common Core standards is eliminated, and funding for "Smarter Balanced" testing in line with the Common Core curriculum is eliminated in favor of state-developed tests. What those tests will be is unclear, but those opposed to Common Core's federally-mandated tests are happy.

- Caps on school vouchers for private, largely religious schools (up to $7800 per student for families with incomes up to $44,000), are also eliminated with requisite increases in state funding.

As is true in the rest of the country, it will take years to establish baselines for new tests to determine whether educational reforms are really resulting in better learning by the students. That said, since Scott Walker became governor in January, 2011 he has done all of the things that conservative reformers would like to see - local control and accountability; reduced union influence; parental choice - and the financial results are good. It is good for the politicians; let's hope it is good for the students.

-----

This week's video is a clever campaign ad by Congressman Roger Williams of Texas.

February 05, 2015

At this point the 2016 Republican presidential conjecture is about the horse race. On the Democrat side the biggest question is how Bill fits into the plan. How can Hillary and the "labor Democrat" machine harness the "good old days" without the baggage? How can she tap into the best political skills in the party without giving up center stage? This week President Clinton made a series of presentations and attended a number of fundraisers in the Bay Area, offering some clues along the way.

The setting of the event which I attended:

Perhaps the most humorous aspect of President Clinton's presentation was the audience. Of the 2000 older middle-aged attendees at the Marin County Veterans' Auditorium in the epicenter of liberal affluence I counted one Asian, no African Americans, and no obvious Hispanics. In a way that is representative of the Democratic conundrum - their minority leaders consist of the likes of Al Sharpton and some tokens in the House while the "racist" Republican firmament includes the likes of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal, Susana Martinez and Doctor Ben Carson as well as the Chinese-American wife of Mitch McConnell and the Mexican-American wife of Jeb Bush. But I digress.

President Clinton speaks in the context of his Clinton Foundation which he founded in 2001 and which now provides a Manhattan home-base for Hillary and Chelsea. The foundation does good work, bringing together business and financial leaders, celebrities, and government leaders with programs and conferences to address global issues of poverty, political instability, health, and climate. Critics, including the New York Times, have complained about a lack of financial transparency and internal controls, and the relationship between donor companies and affiliated third world governments, but I digress. Good work does get done between the speeches and the parties.

The plusses for Hillary:

Bill Clinton controls an ecosystem. With 14 years of post-presidential active engagement with donors and celebrities he remains a major force in the party, and with this Marin demographic as well as with the similarly-aging African-American leadership.

He is a master of political positioning with an element of nostalgia. He frames his major concerns as:

- Income inequality. Our democracy is at risk if the system doesn't work for lower income blue collar whites and African Americans who are on the margin of the economy and society. Unlike Elizabeth Warren he doesn't frame the issue as the 1% and the banks stealing everything, but rather a contrast between the past 14 years and the golden age of his presidency when everybody prospered.

- Stability. Global instability is caused by the growing gap between the have's and the have-not's, exacerbated by pervasive communications which highlight the disparities and offer bomb-making instructions on the Internet. His Global Initiative is working on Third World economics and governance.

- Climate change. He gives mandatory obeisance to the melting Arctic ice cap, but most of his discussion is about loss of arable land and deforestation. There is no need to discuss coal or any other inconvenient economic sacrifices.

- Cooperation. He laments Washington's partisanship, a contrast to his presidency when he worked with Senator Trent Lott (no mention of Newt Gingrich and government shut downs) to balance budgets and foster unprecedented economic growth. He learned great lessons of reconciliation from his deep friendship with Nelson Mandela. Somewhat like Al Gore and the Internet, he budgeted $3 billion for decoding the human genome which is the base for immeasurable benefits for mankind, while showing us that all people are 99% the same.

As further advice to anyone who will listen (Hillary?), he offers that Obamacare is working (except for the disincentives that it provides for companies to hire); that comprehensive immigration reform will give the United States the advantage of a younger vibrant work force (without really affecting existing American workers); that it was an accident of history that Krushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine when it was all part of the Soviet Union (although Putin is overreaching now); and that Iran's nuclear program would likely set off an unacceptable broad arms race in the Middle East. He offers no rhetoric about the "war on women", bank bashing, Islamic terrorism, or anything that Hillary touched during her time at State.

And the minuses for Hillary:

It is about Bill. It is his foundation. His presidency was the high point of post-World War II America. If there is to be nostalgia, it is for Bill Clinton. As a proud grandfather, he has never seen Hillary and Chelsea so happy - not a strong endorsement for presidential candidate Hillary.

There is always the moral low ground. He talks with a wry smile about how we all have our flaws. His frequent visits to the island hideaway of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein will undoubtedly get some play.

The gap between Bill and Hillary in public speaking skills is painful. He has a flawless delivery; he floats between the strategic and the tactical; he connects with the audience and loves the adulation. Hillary will not escape her two most famous recent appearances:

- Her May 2013, "What difference does it make" rant in Senate testimony about the Benghazi cover-up;

- Her October 2014, "Don't let anybody tell you that it is corporations and businesses that create jobs" effort to appeal to the socialist left wing of the Democratic Party.

Net, net Bill was the real deal as a candidate - populist, thriving on interacting with people, compromising when pushed into a corner. To paraphrase Lloyd Bensten's 1988 take-down of Vice Presidential candidate Dan Quayle, who compared himself to John F. Kennedy, Hillary is no Bill Clinton.

-----

Here are Rand Paul and a marginally better Chris Cristie advocating for parental choice in getting their children vaccinated against public health risks where they might become carriers. Both found that the public is much more interested in practical solutions than in libertarian ideological positions.

January 29, 2015

It is not clear where the decision is made - in David Axelrod's Chicago apartment, in the editorial room of the New York Times, in the Harvard faculty lounge, or at a George Soros-funded think tank, but it has definitely been decided. It has made its way into the State of the Union; it is undoubtedly on some liberal ListServ telling journalists what to write about; the chairman of the Federal Reserve is bemoaning it; it is in United Nations speeches; the Pope is talking about it. The problem with America is that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the middle class who are getting poorer, and we need a compassionate Democratic president to protect the middle class from the heartless Republicans.

What we have seen thus far is the set-up. The "woe is me". The fervor intensified in 2014 with French economist Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century which showed increasing concentration of wealth with globalization and technology; with the NPR data which show that over the past few decades the top 5% in the United States have done fine, but the 95% are under water; with the Huffington Post article about income inequality feeding a disparity of money in politics; with the editorial by Robert Reich about how much better Democratic presidents have been.

The policy prescriptions, in the words of Elizabeth Warren, Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and the Occupy Wall Street crowd, as well as Barack Obama's political posturing during his waning presidency: higher income taxes; higher capital gains taxes; higher minimum wages; free pre-school and community college; defense of free or heavily subsidized health care. Only the welfare state can save the people.

That sells pretty well out here in San Francisco, the "City of Saint Francis", but it misses a big point: What is best for a great majority of Americans is a system which encourages work and job creation.

The January 28 Wall Street Journal did a masterful job of outlining the relationship between extended unemployment benefits during the recent recession and the heightened unemployment rate. At the peak of the recession federal subsidies extended state unemployment programs to cover about two years and extended them long after the recession ended. At the end of 2013 the Republican Congress stopped the subsidy, returning the limit to 26 weeks amid Democratic howls about an economic drag, the loss of 240,000 jobs, and a renewed recession. So what happened in 2014? Job creation averaged 246,000 per month, and the official unemployment rate dropped from 6.7% to 5.6%. What's more, since benefits vary by state and regions within states, it was possible to demonstrate that those who had had the highest benefits showed the greatest improvement in job creation when the punchbowl was taken away.

So, beyond just seeming to be empathetic, how should Republicans talk about economic policy?

1. At it's simplest, Republican ideology is about what immigrants have always come here for: liberty (political; religious) and opportunity (economic; societal) with personal responsibility. When you substitute government authority for personal responsibility you diminish liberty and opportunity.

2. The thrust of Democratic policies is redistribution and programs to lessen the suffering of the poor. Under Barack Obama we have 47 million people receiving food stamps, 10 million people receiving Social Security disability payments, and 37% of working-age adults opting out of the job market. It should not be viewed as harsh to argue that the solution to poverty is employment, supported by programs which develop 21st Century skills while encouraging potential workers to work and potential employers to employ.

3. For the truly needy, conservatives have a demonstrably better record of demonstrating compassion. As Arthur Brooks thoroughly documented in "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism", conservatives donate more money and time to charity than do liberals. There is a high correlation to religious conviction, but there is also a preference for personal over governmental responsibility for the needy. Conservatives do not need to apologize.

4. The Republican Party is really the party of the middle class. Looking at the 2012 election results, Barack Obama carried voters earning less than $30,000 per year and over $100,000. He carried voters with less than a high school education or an advanced degree. Mitt Romney carried the middle in both education and in income.

In politics, tone is often more important than substance. Republicans will have the disadvantage of a cacophony of voices - some of whom will say stupid things - while the Democrats will most likely have only one real spokesperson. Doubtless, the media will relish Republican voices which play into the "heartless" imagery and there will be many proposals designed to place Hillary as the champion of the little people - despite her extensive connections to Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation donor network. The theme has been determined - she will make it fit.

It will do well for Republican candidates - and individual supporters - to truly understand and keep repeating that they are the advocates of liberty, opportunity, and personal responsibility; that the best cure for poverty is a job; that conservatives demonstrate more compassion in their personal lives; and that the middle class votes Republican. The truth will make you free.

------

For those who are not familiar with "stealth" presidential candidate, pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, here are the short version and the long version.

January 22, 2015

This State of the Union address was the last time anybody will be listening to this century's most gifted political speaker. Next year all of the Democrats will be fawning around Hillary (or whoever) and all of the Republicans will be looking for talking points for their presidential debates. President Obama's ideology is too far left for the majority of the country, his executive skills and interest are deplorable, and he has made few allies among domestic or foreign leaders ... but he has been masterful in convincing people of good will that his intentions are right and his promises are achievable. So, what did he choose for themes in his last real time on the stage?

1. Washington needs to work together and get beyond petty politics to solving real problems. "Will we allow ourselves to be sorted into factions and turned against one another — or will we recapture the sense of common purpose that has always propelled America forward?"

Never mind the fact that the essence of the speech was laying down markers that he knew had no chance of getting through an energized Republican Congress which is focused on job creation - a $320 billion tax increase; free community college educations for all; guaranteed paid sick leave; enhanced child care subsidies; an increased minimum wage. At the same time, he threatened to veto any changes to Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial measures, his immigration amnesty, the Keystone XL pipeline, or sanctions on Iran.

So much for cooperation. The hypocricy is evident to anybody outside of the lunatic Left fringe. Hopefully the Republicans will send him bill after bill which have the support of the majority of voters and let him show where gridlock begins. And let the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 explain whether their president or the public is wrong.

2. The recession is over. "The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong. At this moment — with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, and booming energy production — we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth.

It would apparently have been against the grain to mimic the recent Democratic theme of income inequality - that while the rich are getting richer, average after tax family incomes are down about 6% during the "Obama recovery". Certainly it would have been poor form to note that the real unemployment rate - including those who have dropped out or are working part time - is twice the publicized 6.2% rate, which is itself above the long term average. Leave it to others to explain why he will veto legislation to restore the definition of the "work week" to 40 hours from its artificial and disruptive 30 hours for purposes of Obamacare mandates.

3. America is providing effective global security leadership. "I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now — and around the globe, it is making a difference."

Perhaps the President is not aware that ISIS continues to gain strength in Syria in the face of our muddled policies, that the pro-West government of Yemen is on the ropes, that Russia and Iran are formalizing an alliance against our interests, that Putin is starting to make noise about protecting ethnic Russians in Estonia, and that Boko Haram is killing thousands in west Africa. There was, of course, no mention of radical Islamic terrorists.

- A push for cybersecurity legislation - a subject where security hawks, business interests, and civil libertarians need to thread the needle. He's got the concept, but won't offer specific language.

- A push for "fast track" agreements designed to accelerate trade growth with the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership - previously blocked by Harry Reid and the labor wing of the Democratic Party.

All-in-all, President Obama chose to make his last significant speech an expression of his ideology with no reflection of the thumping that his party took in November, no realism about a world without American leadership, and little apparent understanding of what can be done to help the middle class.

----

This week's video is a Fox News panel discussion about the implications of the State of the Union speech for Hillary Clinton. The page has been turned.

January 08, 2015

Kabuki (歌舞伎?): a classical Japanese dance-drama. Kabuki theatre is known for the stylization of its drama and for the elaborate make-up worn by some of its performers. Since the word kabuki is believed to derive from the verb kabuku, meaning "to lean" or "to be out of the ordinary", kabuki can be interpreted as "avant-garde" or "bizarre" theatre. A perfect definition of Washington, where the Republican Congress is gearing up for a slew of popular legislation, and the President is demonstrating that he is the real cause of gridlock.

John Boehner has been in the House for 23 years; Mitch McConnell has been in the Senate for 30. Both have climbed over plenty of dead bodies to get where they are. The electoral fortunes of their party members in their chamber have been good during the time of their leadrship. Both will give their members the opportunity to participate in the process of creating legslation under "regular process" - unlike their Democratic predecessors who didn't do budgets, didn't allow amendments from the floor, and had all decisions made by a small leadership group. Both are adequately conservative and understand power. They are not rivals and do not aspire to the presidency. Both understand how their chamber and Washington work. Both can be strategic.

But what will they do, given the lack of the votes needed to override a presidential veto, the Senate Rules requirement that 60 votes are needed for anything substantive to go forward, and the overhang of a 2016 presidential election? The first week of the year is full of preemptive veto threats from a president who has shown no inclnation to work with members of his own party, much less Republicans. Here is a prediction and a hope:

1. They have a joint plan - what are the priorities?; who goes first on each?; how are the differences between the chambers to be managed?; how is the relation with President Obama to be managed? What, after all, is the objective?

2. Like a teacher on the first day of school needs to establish classroom order, the boundaries of acceptable dissent within the caucus need to be established. Fortunately, Boehner's caucus is large enough that he has a majority of 220 without his insurgents who will be punished - and certainly without any need for Nancy Pelosi's Democrats. McConnell has a larger challenge keeping his 54 in line and getting 6 Democrats to move legislation. (The 6 will vary by subject, but the XL maneuvering shows that 8 to 10 Democratic votes can be peeled off to oppose their president.)

3. The first round will be pointed kabuki bills designed to satisfy "the folks back home". Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline (apparent veto); repeal of Obamacare (veto); override of Obama immigration actions (veto); delay of some financial regulations (veto.)

4. The real agenda will include thoughtful versions of House bills that died in Harry Reid's Senate. Rather than broad sweeping legislation, they will be broken up into smaller pieces which have public support and which the president might accept (with some horse trading.)

-- Fast track trade approval for treaties with Asia-Pacific countries which Obama supported but were killed by Harry Reid because of opposition by the AFL-CIO. This will pass and be signed.

-- Modifications to Obamacare - restore a 40 hour work week as the basis for requiring employers to provide health insurance (veto); elimination of the individual mandate (veto); repeal of the medical devices tax; pooling of small business insurance plans; subsidized high risk pools; perhaps weakening the contraception/abortion requirement. (If the Supreme Court applies the wording of the law and rules out subsidies for the federal insurance exchanges, a broader replacement is needed and Obama will need to compromise.)

-- Modifications to immigration law - first priority is border security; defund Obama efforts to prevent deportations; deny services to illegal immigrants; require local cooperation with federal authorities. The Republicans retained the hammer by not funding Homeland Security beyond March.

-- Business tax reform seems possible; Social Security reform will be attempted, but may have to wait for a Republican president.

5. In a bit longer term, the FY2016 budget beginning in October will move beyond the arbitrary budget limits of the 2011 sequestration agreement, using the normal budget and appropriation processes to reduce discretionary domestic spending, and restore military spending. There will be no vetoes here if Obama wants to keep the government running.

It will not be enough to accept vetoes and move on. Many of these issues cause a split in the Democratic Party, with Obama representing the "progressive" wing and the Clintons historically representing the "labor" wing. The mantra will be "What would Hillary do?" - on the XL Pipeline which she waffled on as Secretary of State; on Obamacare, which she foretold with her work on HillaryCare in the 90s; on immigration which threatens Bill Clinton's base among working class white voters; on foreign policy which imploded on her watch?

Harry Reid's do nothing Senate protected Democrats from difficult votes, protected President Obama from the need to veto House legislation, and made it easy for "Hillary the inevitable" to avoid policy discussions. Given a steady stream of vetoes of popular legislation and a president who is disinclined to help her, she will have to show her stripes. Perhaps the Koch Brothers can fund a hash tag - #WhatWouldHillaryDo? - if the media don't demand her engagement.

-----

This week's video from Capitol Steps is a bit long, but it is very funny.

January 01, 2015

Back in November when it appeared that the Republicans might narrowly win the Senate, there was a theme in the liberal press that any victory would be short-lived as the Republicans would have to defend 24 seats in 2016 and the Democrats only 10. Since then Republican prospects have increased measurably: the Republican majority is 54-46, and, while early, the 2016 prospects look good in most of the competitive states.

Of the four Republican tossups, Kirk and Toomey do not face known strong opponents, but are in states which favor Democratics; Kelly Ayotte and Ron Johnson are in swing states, and might face proven competitors in Governor Maggie Hassan and former Senator Russ Feinstein respectively. The greatest risk among the seven Likely/Lean Republicans rests with a potential yet unannounced retirement (McCain; Grassley) or a run for president (Rubio; Paul). To the extent that there are Tea Party insurgents, they are in states where Democrats would have little chance of winning anyway. Net, net unless the presidential election is a Democratic landslide or the Republican Senate proves to be destructively inept, the likelihood is good that Republicans will retain control.

And a longer term view is more encouraging.

In 2018 the Republicans will have to defend only 8 seats while the Democrats will have 23, plus their two Independents.

With each state having two senators the 38 million people of California have only Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein while in the rest of the country there are a few more Red states than Blue states. Charlie Cook's "Partisan Voter Index" has 26 Red states, 23 blue states, and one tie. While Mitt Romney lost by 5 million votes nationally against the incumbent President Obama, he still carried 24 states.

The Republican farm system is also much better stocked than its Democrat counterpart with 31 governors, 31 lieutenant governors, a 247 to 188 advantage in the House, and control of 69 out of 99 state legislative chambers. These folks are getting name recognition, building supporter networks, and learning how to govern. The chaff will get sorted out and there will be plenty of future Republican stars.

Tides ebb and flow and Republicans will need to be conscious of demographics as well as policy, but the legacy of Barack Obama will not be found in the remnants of Obamacare. Rather he has been able to establish what could easily be a lasting Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

-----

The most appropriate video for beginning a new year is a repeat of this statement by state Senator Elbert Guillory of Lousiana.

December 04, 2014

During a recent discussion of election results an experienced senior California Democratic leader reflected on how dominant Democrats remain in California and (I believe sincerely) how national Republicans are on the brink of irrelevence. Acknowledging much of the prior, I was stunned by the latter claim and have thought a bit about the mindset of California Democrats.

First, California from a Republican point of view:

- This does remain the bluest of blue states. Democrats retained all of the state-wide offices, still hold predominant majorities in the assembly and senate, and even gained a House of Representatives seat. Republicans did gain enough seats in both houses to require some Republican votes for any tax increase, their candidates for Controller and Secretary of State came close, and Grow Elect continued to add Hispanic Republican office holders at the local level.

- During the decades of Democratic dominance California has moved from being the "Golden State" to being in the bottom few in k-12 education, business climate, tax burden, debt rating, and poverty rate. Nevertheless, party registration is 43 % Democratic, 28 % Republican, and 21% "Decline to State". Long term bad results of Democratic policies have not significantly affected the political direction.

- The Democrat base is formidable - public employee unions for money and campaign workers; Hispanics for voters; and environmentalists for money and ideologues. The leadership is over-aged - Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, party chair John Burton - but for now they are firmly in control. It is easy to see how they could focus on their political success rather than the cumulative impact of their policies.

But, the national picture of the November election is radically different.

- The Republican House majority of 244 members is the most since the Roaring 20's. Nancy Pelosi has lost over a quarter of her caucus since she passed Obamacare in 2011, and most agree that Republicans will control the House until at least the redistricting after the 2020 census. (Democrats blame gerrymandering; the real cause is that minorities are heavily concentrated in urban centers and it would take substantial reverse gerrymandering to spread them among suburban districts.)

- The Republican Senate majority of 54 members (including Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana) is the most since 2005. This will be contested in 2016, but there are a few more Red states than Blue states and Republicans have an inherent long term structural advantage.

- The greater measure is at the state level where Republicans hold 31 governorships, including pick-ups in deep Blue states of Massachusetts, Maryland, and Illinois.

- Also at the state level, in a complete reversal of the past century, Republicans control 68 of 98 legislative chambers including 23 states where they control both chambers and the governoprship. (See map.) This is the most legislative chambers that Republicans have enjoyed since the party was formed in 1854. How could this be, my Democratic friend might ask? In addition to the anti-Obama wave, this is a result of the South turning totally Red, the recruitment of good candidates, and an RNC focus on funding competitive races.

And what is one to make of the California Democrat's disconnect on the national picture? It is one thing to say that the wave stopped at the Sierras; another to deny that there was a wave. There are two possible explanations:

1. Long term successful politicians are by nature optimists and cheerleaders. They see what they want to see and are surrounded by people who tell them what they want to hear. They can watch their favorite TV networks, log on to their favorite web sites, and subscribe to their favorite newspapers. A pliant press makes this particularly easy. A career of electoral success validates the blinders.

2. Long term successful politicians are by nature cynical and manipulative. They understand the difference between policy and politics, making sure to always be associated with policies that are popular with their constituencies. Over time they are so committed to those policies that they cannot fathom that other constituencies may prefer other policies. They may admit this to themselves, but they must never admit it to their voters.

Liberals and Conservatives are equally subject to the belief that their local success must eventually be replicated everywhere. Either explanation of the California delusion - optimism, cynicism, or both combined - should also serve as a cautionary note for those living in places like Texas or South Carolina.

-----

This week's video is the Eric Garner choke hold in New York City - not because you haven't seen it, but because the non-indictment is the most important event of the week. Ferguson was an Al Sharpton / national media scam; this one deserves outrage. The role of the grand jury is not to decide guilt or innocence, but to determine whether there was probable cause for a trial. The process worked in Ferguson, Missouri, but not in New York City.

November 20, 2014

Some of the Democrats greatest presidential victories have come with young, vigorous candidates reflecting a generational change in national political leadership:Jack Kennedy following Dwight Eisenhower; Bill Clinton becoming the first Baby Boomer president; Barack Obama beating John McCain in 2008. A Hillary Clinton candidacy would promise to continue the Democratic politics of demographics - African Americans, Hispanics, women - but it would offer a golden opportunity for the right Republican candidate to strip away the other leg of the Obama coalition - the youth vote - by campaigning as the party of the future. Let's reflect on the opportunity.

In November 2016 Hillary Clinton will be 69 years old. The first reaction is to think of her health and endurance through a grueling campaign - even if there is no real primary challenge. Health issues prevented her from testifying about Benghazi - well, maybe that was a sham. Even with chartered jets, five star hotels, a large travelling staff, and a protective media, it will be hard to avoid looking tired and making irritated comments like her famous "what difference does it make" about Benghazi.

More important is the generational disconnect. She was conspiring with Saul Alinsky, running her Whitewater scam, and tolerating Jennifer Flowers before most of the Millenials were born. Devoid of any accomplishments as Secretary of State or Senator from New York, her supporters trumpet her broad experience - a vague reference to her having been First Lady 20 years ago. Somewhere in the Republican opposition research and messaging machine there have to be videos from the 60s and 70s of Bill and Hillary in their bell bottoms and spandex cavorting with a crowd of Vietnam War protesters before Al Gore invented the Internet - three political generations ago.

In a stroke of good luck the Democrats have decided to keep the leadership which has taken them to multi-decade lows in the House, the Senate, governorships, and state legislatures. Beyond the political and managerial issues are the optics for the Party - Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are 74. Out here on the Left Coast, the last Democratic Party bastion, Jerry Brown is 76, Diane Feinstein is 81, and Barbara Boxer is 74. There is virtually nobody in this Democratic leadership who can identify with the aspirations of the Millenials.

So, what threads can the Republicans weave together to identify themselves as the Party of the Future?

1. The Republican candidate should trumpet a rebirth of economic vibrancy after an administration which does not understand what drives the American economy. The Keystone XL Pipeline serves as a symbol of commitment to energy indepencence for North America. Corporate tax reform can reaffirm faith in the entrepreneural spirit and acumen of American business. The healthcare industry can be saved from the suffocating taxes and regulations of Obamacare. One would expect that the prospect of a career and a path out of Mom and Dad's basement would be rewarded at the ballot box.

2. Rand Paul is onto something with liberty, enjoying disproportionate support of young voters. Recent polls show that Americans are more concerned about the oppression of big government than that of big business or big unions. One dimension is the growth of Washington's reach in healthcare, the EPA, and education. Another is the conflict - heightened by Edward Snowden's revelations - about the intersection of privacy and security from terrorism in an era of social media, communications surveillance, and big data. A candidate who can speak about liberty in a future America will have much relevance.

3. Threading the needle on immigration requires a vision of a future multi-ethnic America with common values. For Millenials, Republicans cannot be the party seeking to preserve an Ozzie and Harriet world of the 1950's, but there is a great opportunity for a Republican candidate to highlight the enduring values that define the United States of America and make it exceptional. After eight years of Barack Obama this will resonate if done sincerely.

4. Restoration of America's leadership role in the world of the 21st Century is an easy differentiator. As Secretary of State, Hillary was the primary agent of Barack Obama's failed drive to reduce both the capability and the will of the United States to lead as China emerges, Russia tries to reestablish its empire, and the Middle East disintegrates. Republicans offer a better future.

Back in the days of the Free Speech Movement Mario Savio exhorted Hillary's contemporaries to not trust anyone over 30. Today's Republicans would be wise to make 60 the new 30.

-----

This week's video is my Congresswoman's concession speech after the Democrats' drubbing in the November elections. With due apologies to my good friend John Dennis, the Republican candidate in San Francisco, long may she reign as minority leader.

November 13, 2014

The successful 2016 Republican presidential candidate will need a combination of personality, philosophy, and experience. On the first score there is a lot to be said for freshness - provided the candidate can withstand the army of "opposition researchers" fanning out after the 2014 midterm elections, with both Democrats and Republicans trying to get the dirt on the many who want to be on the debate stage. On philosophy, all will be within a fairly narrow band of conservatism. After the disasterous Obama presidency and with 31 Republican governors extolling the virtues of the statehouse experience, the burden of proof will be on those who have not hired and fired, balanced budgets, made principled compromises, and dealt with crises large and small.

Within the governor constellation, geography plays a role in terms of the culture of the electorate and the perception of that culture outside of its region. The south - too conservative; inadequate appeal in purple states. The northeast - too liberal; will not generate adequate enthusiasm with the Party's base. The west - no Republicans in consequential states. The midwest - ah, there's the trove; focused on fixing the problems of Rust Belt economies; bland enough to not offend Hollywood or Tupolo. Let's look at the leading prospects:

- Congressman from Columbus from 1983 to 2001; Chairman of the House Budget Committee in Gingrich/Clinton years; fringe potential presidential candidate in 1990s; Fox News personality; banker with Lehman Brothers; first elected governor in 2010; reelected easily in 2014.

- Reduced first budget by $1.8 billion; restructured complex cororate tax code to a flat tax on C Corporations; supported controversial transportation connection to Ontario; supported authority of cities to take extraordinary measures to restructure finances; passed "Right to Work" legislation; travelled to Afghanistan to support troops; trade missions to Europe, Asia, and Israel to promote business and educational connections. Instrumental in efforts to help Detroit through bankruptcy.

- Reliably conservative positions on right to life, gay marriage. Relatively international for a governor.

- Age 59; white; male. Graduate of Hanover College and Indiana University Law School. Evangelical Christan.

- First elected to Congress from eastern Indiana in 2000. Leadership position in Republican House caucus from 2006 to 2012 - top initial competitor to John Boehner for party leader; leading advocate for Israel, opposition of earmarks, opposition to gay marriage, a constitutional amendment to limit government spending, "no amnesty" immigration reform, and support for George W Bush's Iraq War policies.

- Elected governor in 2012, following Republican Mitch Daniels who was term-limited. Signed substantial cuts to business taxes; increased school choice, and increased transportation infrastructure spending.

- More than reliably conservative on social, tax, spendng, and foreign policy issues.

- Has been an advisor to mayor Rahm Emanuel, and comes from outside the partisan political world. Time will tell how well he adapts. Perhaps a 2020 player if he succeeds.

And while we are at it, let's think for a second about why the Midwest, most of which voted for Barack Obama, have elected Republican governors. In the former Rust Belt, jobs really are the issue. Perhaps on the coasts the Democrats can rouse a coalition of young women, minorities, and wealthy donors with social and environmental issues. Not in the Midwest - at least in terms of the elected officials who are making the decisions which have direct impact on the lives of the voters. If the 2016 election is to be about pragmatic substance, the Republicans would be well served by a Midwest governor.

-----

This week's video is of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber's cynical explanation of why the stupid American public got snookered.

November 06, 2014

It is hard to find anyone outside of the White House or the New Republic who denies that President Obama and the Democrats took a thumping on November 4. A likely Senate pick-up of nine seats; the greatest Republican House majority since Herbert Hoover; three more governorships in Blue states; fully two thirds of the state legislative chambers - a wave by any standard. The question is whether it is more than that - a rising Republican tide which will last for awhile. It is easy to think so.

Much more will be written about how the incompetence of the Obama administration has scarred the reputation of "big government" - the Obamacare rollout; Snowden's NSA; the Veterans Administration; the events leading to ISIS; the Ukraine; the open southern border; even the inability of the Secret Service to protect the president. Some of these have an ideological underlay, but the average voter has come to the conclusion that government is trying to do more than it is capable of. Each issue stands on its own, but the collective impact on the public mirrors President Reagan's observation that "government cannot solve the problem; government is the problem." For the middle ground voters, it is not just about what it would be nice to do, it is about what the government is capable of doing. That bodes well for Republicans.

The Republican National Committee seems to have gotten its act together under Chairman Reince Priebus. During his prior stint in Wisconsin he shepherded the normally Democratic state to a Republican goveror, a Republican Assembly and Senate, a majority Republican congressional delegation, and a Republican US Senator. Arriving at the RNC in 2011, he was unable to save the 2012 presidential election, but he was a good listener and has done much to restore confidence among the donor base. In this cycle, the RNC (the "Washington establishment" ) did great opposition research to support defeat of problematic candidates in the primaries, and to highlight Democratic shortcomings in November. The cavalry was sent to rescue Pat Roberts in Kansas. Contributions by outside PACs were targeted - within the campaign finance laws, of course - to provide timely support to Senate and governor candidates. Where the Obama machine's superior GOTV capability helped win the 2012 election, this time Republicans did a superior job of turning out voters in greater numbers than predicted by the polls.

Perhaps the largest lasting advantage is the bench that the Republicans are building. With the majority of state legislators, some 30 governors, and 70 more Congress members, there are just many more future leaders to choose from. Want a Midwest governor to run for President - there are five to choose from. Want a state Senator or a Congress member to run for a Senate seat - there is a Joni Ernst or a Cory Gardner available. While the number of Republican presidential aspirants will require some winnowing, it is far better than having only one realistic competitor who got her start in politics with Saul Alinsky in the 60s.

Finally, Republicans have a structural advantage in the way that our leaders are elected.

- Democrats explain the Republican dominance in the House as the result of gerrymandering when district boundaries were drawn after the 2010 census and Republicans controlled a disproportionate number of redistricting commissions as a result of the 2010 wave election. That may account for a dozen or two of the new 70 seat majority. A much bigger structural problem for the Democrats is that their voters are highly concentrated in big cities. The general guideline for drawing district lines is to not divide communities of interest - thus from a partisan electoral perspective at a Congressional level, the areas of New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles that vote 90+% Democrat are wasted while the suburban or rural areas that vote 55% Republican are much more vote cost effective. Most concede Republican House dominance through at least 2020; even then, it will take much reverse gerrymandering or a massive shift in public attitudes to deliver a Democratic House.

- Each state gets two senators, and the District of Columbia none. Because there are more heavily populated Blue states (California, New York, Illinois, Michigan) and more rural thinly populated Red states (mountain states; plains states; Southern states) there are slightly more Red states than Blue states even though there are narrowly more Democrats than Republicans. Everything being equal, the Senate should be Republican by a couple of states. In 2016 the Republicans need to defend 24 seats while the Democrats need to defend 10 - largely as a result of the 2010 Tea Party landslide. Starting with 54 will be much better than 51, but it will be a challenge.

- The Republican advantage is greatly diminished in presidential elections where electoral college votes are allocated to the states with one for each Representative and Senator. Still, since there are more Red states than Blue states the Senator component of the equation favors Republicans. Democrats would like direct election without the electoral college, not because of the clunkiness of the process or the risk of a rogue elector, but because it gives Republicans a small advantage.

Maybe this is too optimistic. It is true that the mid-term elections draw an older, more conservative electorate. Maybe Hillary will turn out to be a great campaigner with a great message. Maybe the Republicans will find a way to self-destruct. But in this lovely week in November 2014, it is more than reasonable for Republicans to celebrate success and to believe that the door is open to the party of liberty, opportunity, and self-reliance to secure ascendency for a long time.

October 30, 2014

Maybe it is a lingering reaction to the surprise loss of Mitt Romney in 2012. Maybe it is a suppressed memory of the Democratic near-sweep of contested Senate seats in 2008. Maybe it is fear of Charlie Brown-like disappoint after six years of Barack Obama and Harry Reid. Despite all of the good signs, there is still plenty of reason to be nervous - and not just because political campaigns want to keep their supporters on edge to boost last-minute fundraising and turnout.

At this point we are past the risk of embarrasing Republican candidates winning in remote primaries or making "legitimate rape" gaffes; past the debates where ignorance or a brain freeze could doom an otherwise good candidate; past the fundraising season where George Soros, Tom Steyer, or the SEIU could tilt the scales if the Republican donors were absent; past the point where NBC or CBS "investigative reports" can make much of a difference. The voting has begun in 30 states, pundits are parsing the party affiliation of early voters to glean trends - something like Greek soothsayers analyzing goats entrails. Game on!

What is left is Get Out The Vote. Some snippets:

- While most of the big money goes into media, successful campaign managers recruit, motivate, and manage the mix of volunteers and paid help to operate phone banks and walk precincts. Computer tools are broadly available to identify high propensity voters and likely supporters of Candidate A or Candidate B based on party affiliation from the voter files, and housing and demographic details from the 2010 census. Precinct walks target specific homes with specific messages, and are optimized to minimize wasted steps. Early voting results are fed back to the infantry to hone their targets. This is not new, except that e-mails now complement snail mail advertisements, door knocks and door knob hangers. There is no inherent partisan advantage - the tools are agnostic; there are plenty of technicians for hire.

- There was a huge divide in 2012 in the skill in using "big data" and social media. The Obama campaign had left a state structure in place from 2008, deepening connections in key communities, learning mastery of social media, and preparing for the final weeks of the campaign with availability of subject matter experts, people able to answer inquiries on how to register and the location of polling places, and lawyers able to defend and attack. The Romney campaign was staffed by people who showed up after he won the nomination; their heralded information system, ORCA, collapsed on the eve of the election. Republicans have been working to catch up for two years with former Facebook whiz Andy Barkett in the lead. A national list of likely Republican voters is available; there is evidence of much better performance in some important off-cycle elections (San Diego mayor; a Florida Congressional race). A post mortem of this year's Senate races will show how much of this gap remains.

- The "voter integrity"/ "voter suppression" battle plays out with the Supreme Court delaying implementation of a voter ID law in Wisconsin (which would have become the 33d state with some form of ID requirement) and allowing Texas to use its new strict voter ID law while it remains under challenge. Democrats probably benefit in two ways:

-- Democrats, particularly in North Carolina and Georgia, are depending on getting out a large African American vote. Despite their declining financial fortunes under the first African-American president and their hero's threat to give amnesty to a large number of Hispanics who contend for low end jobs, the "voter suppression" mantra will motivate turnout - at least that is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hope when she equates voter ID requirements to Jim Crow.

-- Mail-in ballots - the antithesis of verification and privacy - will become the sole means of voting in Colorado, joining Oregon and Washington. Expect voting parties at the nursing homes and union halls.

-- James O'Keefe, whose expose blew up Acorn in 2009, has started Project Veritas to document a willingness to encourage fraud on the part of Democrats in Colorado and North Carolina . The claim that voter fraud is non-existent still goes largely unchallenged outside of Breitbart.

Enough of the wet balanket! The Washington Post gives the Republicans a 95% chance of winning the Senate. Let's go with that.

-----

This week's video is an early reflection of the fact that Hillary Clinton is determined to not be outflanked on the anti-business Left as she maneuvers for the Democratic presidential nomination. There can be no backpedalling; this was not an unintended slip; it is not taken out of context as the NY Times would claim.

October 23, 2014

With interest rates remaining near zero and bond buying coming to an end, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen recently had the time to reflect on income inequality in America, citing the increase in the portion of accumulated wealth held by the top 5 % from 54% in 1989 to 63 % in 2013. This follows several months of adoring articles about French economist Thomas Piketty's book, Capital in the 21st Century, which feed's the Occupy movement's theme of the rich unfairly getting richer. There is room to challenge some of Yellen's and Piketty's logic, but it is probably more valuable to accept the general premise and ask "why", and "what can be done"?

The large dynamics are easy to understand - globalization (Western labor competing with low cost third world workers); and technology (first we automated agriculture, then the factory, now the office.) On this, there should be little disagreement. The differences come in the solutions where there are stark ideological differences and political correctness prevents helpful discussions.

The most telling statistic to highlight the decline of the middle class - the real cause of income inequality - is the labor force participation rate. Forget the artificial unemployment rate. Thirty-seven per cent of working age adults - 92 million people - are not working or looking for a job. There is an extensive safety net - unemployment compensation; disability payments; free healthcare; food stamps; subsidized housing - but these people are declining in economic standing. There is a lost generation that will never recover from the Great Recession, and many in the next generation who cannot get on the first rung of the ladder.

Economists should be able to agree that the presence of 11 million low-skilled illegal immigrants in the United States depress the labor market, with the most directly adversely affected group being the African American community. It is a tribute to the leadership of the Democratic Party that they have been able to retain 90 + % voting allegiance of African Americans (in part, but only on the margin, because of Barack Obama) and solid support of organized labor while advocating for millions who will displace them and drive down their wages. For the lower working class, this is a large factor in growing income inequality - never to be discussed by the Yellens and the Piketty's

A second simple, politically incorrect, perspective is represented by Rick Santorum's advice to people seeking to avoid poverty - get a degree, get a job, get married before you have kids. Nuclear families are not only better for raising kids, they are immensely better for capital formation. Two incomes work a whole lot better than a single mother struggling with two or three jobs. The decline of the family - particularly in the African American community where most babies do not have a father present - is a direct cause of downward economic drift. Don't look for that in the NY Times.

A third easily agreed element for the Yellens and the Pikettys should be the lagging economic growth since 2008. In most recoveries, over this period the rate of GDP growth should be about 4% per year instead of the 2% that we have been experiencing. The Federal Reserve has certainly done everything that it can with monetary policy, but the legislative and executive branches have not done their part with corporate tax policy, energy policy, entitlement reform, foreign trade policy, or encouragement of lending to small businesses. The Office of Management and Budget projects that Obamacare requirements alone have cost some 2 million full time jobs. Lots of the bills sitting in Harry Reid's in box would make this better.

From a political perspective, Republicans have recovered from an 18 point deficit in 2008 on who the voters judge best able to manage the economy to a 10 point advantage in today's Wall Street Journal/NBC and Gallup polls. Whatever comes out of the federal government's Ministry of Truth, the people know that the middle class is suffering, and six years into the reign of Barack Obama they have decided that their real life problems will not be solved by more welfare state programs. What is needed to revive the wealth of the middle class is more jobs, provided by vibrant capitalism. It seems that the voting public gets it.

-----

This week's video comes from a vigilant reader in Sonoma County wondering about who created the opening for ISIS in Iraq. Hilarious, if not so serious.

October 09, 2014

Back in 1994 the American public knew that if they voted for Republicans for Congress they would get Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey's Contract with America. They did; and they did. Two years into the Clinton administration the Republicans gained 54 House seats, 9 Senate seats, and control of both houses. The Republican House passed all of the promised legislation. Much, particularly a balanced budget amendment and term limits, did not get past the Senate or a presidential veto, but much did - tort reform, welfare reform, criminal sentencing, small business incentives - and the tone was set for fiscal restraint for the balance of the Clinton presidency.

On October 2, Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus unveiled the 2014 version - a set of principles which appeal to conservatives, but which will soon be forgotten. Nevertheless, for those tired of hearing the "party of no" canard, here they are:

CONSTITUTION: Our Constitution should be preserved, valued and honored.

ECONOMY: We need to start growing America’s economy instead of Washington’s economy so that working Americans see better wages and more opportunity.

BUDGET/DEBT: We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, make government more efficient, and leave the next generation with opportunity, not debt.

HEALTHCARE: We need to start over with real healthcare reform that puts patients and their doctors in charge, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington.

VETERANS: Our veterans have earned our respect and gratitude, and no veteran should have to wait in line for months or years just to see a doctor.

EDUCATION: Every child should have an equal opportunity to get a great education; no parent should be forced to send their child to a failing school.

POVERTY: The best anti-poverty program is a strong family and a good job, so our focus should be on getting people out of poverty by lifting up all people and helping them find work.

VALUES: Our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty, and hard work.

ENERGY: We should make America energy independent by encouraging investment in domestic energy, lowering prices, and creating jobs at home.

IMMIGRATION: We need an immigration system that secures our borders, upholds the law, and boosts our economy.

This is not an inspirational set of legislation for which individual members of the House and Senate can be held accountable, but it is all that we have from the GOP leadership. Assuming that the Republicans capture the Senate, the period after November 4, should play out about as follows:

- The President takes sweeping unilateral action on immigration, probably "extending deferred action to millions of low-priority immigrants". Republicans see it coming but choose to do nothing to preempt it, instead fighting a rear-guard political and legal battle that will cost Hispanic votes for generations. Any real solution becomes a central issue in the 2016 presidential election.

- Republicans pass the obligatory repeal of Obamacare; the President vetoes. Republicans consider some fixes - purchase of insurance across state lines; extension of exemptions to more businesses; tort reform; a reduction of mandates. Obama prefers to get another two years of taking root; Republicans prefer to retain a powerful 2016 campaign issue. Little progress.

- Republicans approve the XL pipeline. President Obama, lacking the courage to approve it also lacks the courage to veto it. Truth be told, he doesn't care.

- Republicans move on to a set of popular legislation which has been blocked by Harry Reid - fast track authority for foreign trade deals; acceleration of depreciation for small businesses; repeal of the medical device tax; regulatory relief for small businesses; and enhancements for border security; some corporate tax reform affecting foreign earnings. Obama doesn't care.

- The House continues to investigate Obama administration transgressions - Eric Holder's contempt of Congress; Benghazi; the IRS; the Secret Service. The administration continues to stonewall. The public has lost interest unless it involves Hillary Clinton.

Net, net, without an agreed agenda for specific legislation backed by elected party leaders, the Republicans will have missed both a marketing opportunity and the ability to declare a mandate. So sad. On to 2016.

-----

This week's video offers a picture of what it takes to run for Congress as a Democrat in Colorado - opposing Nancy Pelosi.

October 02, 2014

After the terrible disappointment of the 2012 Presidential race, one is reluctant to let one's expectations get too far out in front of the calendar. Reporters want things to be close and uncertain so that you will remain tuned in. Campaign managers want things to be close to wring that final $10 donation out of you. Nevertheless, absentee voting has already begun and much is knowable. Here are some "known knowns":

The macro climate is terrible for Democrats. The Real Clear Politics average of "country direction" polling has 27% "right track", and 65% "wrong track" and falling. The president's polling is 14% under water on the economy and 21% under water on foreign policy. Republicans are up 3% on the generic congressional ballot. As the pollsters transition from "registered voters" to "likely voters" the Republicans will pick up a couple of points, and their base is more highly motivated.

Public attitudes like these are not an accident; they are earned by the party in power.

- Internet videos of ISIS beheading Americans as they have marched across Syria and Iraq have made the failure of the president's Mideast policy impossible to ignore. There is little confidence in his ability to lead a successful coalition to eliminate ISIS and no coherent plan for dealing with the Syrian civil war. Blaming it on Bush has passed its expiration date. Blaming his previous dismissal of ISIS asa JVs on an "intelligence failure" is receiving easy pushback since the likelihood of the Syrian militants taking over territory in Iraq was in the media a year ago, and the current situation was predicted by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in February Congressional testimony. It doesn't help that President Obama has blown off nearly 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.

- For this election cycle the administration has played immigration to the political detriment of both the Left and the Right, first promising an executive order on amnesty before the end of summer, then promising that it would come after the election, and that it would be substantial.Settling the illegal Central American kids in every state may have a long range benefit for the Democrats, but not this November.

- In fairness, many of the economic numbers are improving - unemployment down to 6.1%, GDP is growing at a 2 to 4 % rate. Unfortunately for the president's party, the percentage of the population out of the work force is at a 36 year high, family earnings are declining, and fully 75% of the voters now believe that their children's lives will not be more full than theirs - down 13% in two years, and an all-time low on that polling question. Can you say Jimmy Carter.

- A drip, drip, drip of bad news on Obamacare - hundreds of thousands who will have to pay back subsidies (once the government figures out how to administer that); more rate increases for the 2015 sign up period which begins in November; the implementation of coverage requirements for larger companies starting in January; increased fines for those who do not obtain coverage. The president's signature accomplishment remains any Democrat candidate's major millstone with approval under 30%.

- Beyond the normal big stuff, the aura of incompetence continues to mount: the Secret Service failures; the viruses spread by illegal immigrants who have not been checked before being distributed; lingering Veterans Administration problems; now fears that Ebola may not be controlled.

So, how about some predictions on the "known unknowns":

- Democrat-leaning Nate Silver gives the Republicans a 60% chance of gaining the six net seats required for control of the Senate; the Real Clear Politics average of pollsters has recently moved from a gain of five to a gain of seven. Most prognosticators give the Democrats a chance of taking Kansas, while giving the Republicans a virtual certainty of taking Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, a good probability of taking Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alaska, small but growing leads in Iowa and Colorado, and outside shots in North Carolina New Hampshire, and Michigan.

- The Democrats - other than Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman- Schultz - have long-ago given up hope of retaking the House. While a year ago the talk was of Democrats gaining a few seats, the current perspective is summed up by Stu Rothenberg: "If the breeze at the backs of Republican candidates is strong enough (sweeping in GOP nominees who would not win in a “neutral” environment), then net Republican House gains in the double digits certainly are possible." While the allegiances of most districts are pretty well set until the next census, there are perhaps 30 that can shift, and several that swung Democrat in the Obama reelection are expected to revert to Republican with the lower turnout of a non-presidential year and the hostile climate.

- Governorships are a mixed bag, tending to be more driven by personalities and local perspectives. Real Clear Politics shows a Democratic gain of two, with a few potential 2016 presidential or vice-presidential candidates in play - Kasich up 30% in Ohio after being close a year ago; Susana Martinez in New Mexico and Nikki Haley in South Carolina safely ahead; and Scott Walker in Wisconsin pulling ahead by low single digits.

If you are superstitious, it may be prudent to avoid the venue of your 2012 election party, but it looks safe to order the champagne.

-----

This week's bonus video is a short introduction to Wisconsin Governor and potential presidential candidate Scott Walker - in a context other than his clash with public employee unions and the resultant 2012 recall effort. Assuming reelection, he will draw some interest.

September 18, 2014

To understand the war against ISIS, it is best to separate the discussion into three parts:

1. Is President Obama's strategy logical?

2. Can Team Obama execute the strategy?

3. Can the American political class provide the long term support necessary?

1. Is President Obama's strategy logical?

In a nutshell, the strategy is to engage a broad coalition, rely primarily on indigenous ground forces in Iraq and Syria to do the heavy lifting, and support them with American (and other) airpower, munitions, logistics, training, and intelligence. Implicitly this assumes retention of the existing Iraq and Syria borders with varying levels of internal regional autonomy, some cooperation from the Iraqi government, and no active opposition from the Syrian government.

Before getting to specific responsibilities and contributions, the concept of a broad coalition is easy. Intensity of concern about ISIS has several levels - first the governments of Iraq and Syria themselves; next adjacent states that are directly threatened - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon; then the regional powers (Sunni or Shia) who do not want a rampaging jihadist neighbor - Egypt, Turkey, and Iran; then the smaller regional players (Sunni or Shia) who fear instability - Qatar, Kuwait, the Emirates; then Russia which has its own Muslim problem; then the Europeans who have a history in the Middle East. One might expect that engagement - military, economic, political - would vary with proximity, but there are plenty of like-minded folks. Check.

In terms of numbers, there are more than enough local, battle hardened soldiers to take on the 30,000 ISIS fighters. Rough numbers include 270,000 in the Iraqi Army, some 550,000 Iraqi armed police and special forces, some 190,000 Iraqi Kurd peshmerga fighters, some 200,000 career Syrian Army soldiers, and tens of thousands of Syrian opposition fighters. All of these numbers are problematic, loyalties are frequently more to tribes and clans, and the Iraqi Army has been shown to be highly suspect; however, these are big numbers and the global arms merchants have had a booming market for decades. There is raw material to work with, and our military knows the territory and key military leaders in Iraq. Check.

American airpower, augmented by a few allies, would have free reign over Iraq from bases in Qatar and carriers in the Persian Gulf. NATO member Turkey has refused use of Incirlik airbase near the Syrian and Iraqi borders, but adequate options are available far beyond the current rate of three to five airstrikes per day. What is needed is coordination with ground forces or forward air controllers to identify and mark targets. Syria is more problematic with well equipped and trained air defense forces in place. Partial check.

2. Can Team Obama Execute the Strategy?

The first requirement of leadership is knowing and being able to explain where you are going. Within the past few months President Obama has called ISIS the Junior Varsity, called the moderate Syrian opposition a bunch of farmers, and had a public dispute with his Joint Chiefs Chairman about whether there might be a need for US combat troops. No check.

A second requirement is to engender trust that you have a real commitment to the mission and to your partners. Playing golf 10 minutes after a national address about the beheading of an American hostage is jarring; renouncing use of American troops while asking others to step forward is a non-starter. More broadly, President Obama does not have any friendships to call upon in the Middle East - or anywhere in the world for that matter. Certainly not the Saudis; certainly not the Egyptians; certainly not the Turks or the Iranians; certainly not the Israelis; certainly not the Russians. Each will act in their self interest with no reason to bend toward Obama. No check.

A third requirement is a sense of competence for the task at hand. Releasing five Taliban leaders for an Army deserter is a terrible precedent for a war which is bound to be marked by hostage taking. The recent admission that we had no strategy for combatting ISIS was unnecessary and harmful. Our stated objective initially was to contain and degrade rather than to defeat and destroy the enemy. Secretary of State Kerry's back and forth on whether we are at war was troubling - we may not be, but ISIS has declared that they are. No check.

In fairness, a key element of Obama's strategy is targeting of ISIS leadership, whether they be in Iraq or Syria, without the approval of the local governments. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been consistent, and successful, in unilaterally using drones and aircraft to eliminate the leadership of jihadi groups in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia. In the nuance of Obamaspeak, CIA and Special Forces operatives don't constitute "boots on the ground". ISIS' leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is likely to join Osama bin Laden in short order. Check.

3. Can the American political class provide the long term support necessary?

While purists on the Left and Right have joined a few chattering opportunists to oppose the arming of moderate Syrian opposition forces, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the Republican establishment have played it straight in supporting the President's request. Check.

More problematic is Obama's contention that he does not need the approval of Congress for the sharp escalation of engagement in Iraq and Syria, relying on a 2001 Congressional authorization to pursue the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks - a total reversal of candidate Obama's criticism of President Bush who did seek such Congressional approval for his war in Iraq. With 67% of the public favoring a strong response to ISIS after the beheading of two American hostages, the opportunity to rally bipartisan support for an extended campaign is at hand, but will apparently not be taken. No check.

And a word for the skeptics: President Obama has consistently put off the political pain of Obamacare until after elections; he has put off the political pain of immigration reform until after the November election; he initially claimed to be infuriated by the IRS targeting political opponents, but let it die down; he promised an investigation of Benghazi which never happened; there is a very good chance that in Obama's mind "this too shall pass." In fact, this week he has started a war on Ebola. No check.

What a legacy!

-----

This week's video is a short commerical from a small food store chain in Tenneessee.

September 11, 2014

In assessing America's international competitiveness, many experts would give us good marks for having deep capital markets, high entrepreneurship, and a "best in class" university system. That is why people come here to invest, start a (particularly tech) business, and get a college or post-graduate education. On the other hand, the United States is well down the international ranks in terms of the business tax code and K-12 education. The good news - if you choose to accept the challenge - is that education is largely controlled at the state and local level, and that the informed voter can make a difference. Here are some action-oriented thoughts for the November 4 elections.

Become informed.

A little bit of searching at www.Ballotpedia.com, your local department of elections, or the school district's web site will explain the structure of the school district, list the candidates, and sometimes provide brief biographies. Some candidates will have their own web sites, but more frequently it is necessary to find local news articles, attend a debate, or do a Google search. Candidates generally welcome e-mails or calls asking for their positions and upcoming events. In September and October they should be in full campaign mode - looking for volunteers to man phones, walk precincts, or donate.

Everyone claims to favor strong financial management and opportunity for all students, and the largest differentiators in selecting Board members to vote for are generally the capabilities of the candidate and the commitment to do real work. That said, there are sometimes real policy differences too, often along the lines of whether the candidate's commitment to students is moderated by a commitment to the teachers' unions, and whether the candidate sees a School Board position as a stepping stone toward higher office. The prior shortcoming reflects in attitudes about compensation, performance measurement, and willingness to address low performing teachers. The latter can lead to a focus on issues that have little to do with education - social issues; environmental issues; school lunch mandates.

It is worth focusing on what the local school board can really impact. Since Common Core is determined at a state level, it is more meaningful to ask what they think the district should do to implement it rather than initiate a philosophical discussion. On the other hand, charter schools, school assignmnet policies, and vouchers are local issues which offer differentiation among candidates.

The incumbents and top new candidates are easy to figure out if you have kids in the school. If you don't, ask someone who does. Go to a school board meeting or watch one on public television. Incumbents have a visible track record. .

San Francisco - an extreme example.

In San Francisco in 2014 there are issues that offer clear choices for the voter at the K-12 level, at the Junior College level, and at the state level.

San Francisco has the lowest percentage of residents under 18 of any city in the country. Private schools represent 24% of the k-12 population, including the kids of some 80 percent of households earning over $100,000. Clearly, the public school system is not attracting a large portion of the students and parents who could make a better system for all students. One factor is a school assignment policy which favors income factors (as a proxy for racial factors) over neighborhood schools in a failing effort to force integration, while requiring high school students to spend hours on buses and minimizing parent involvement in the schools. One candidate, Lee Hsu, has the courage to champion neighborhood schools.

For the past two years the 80,000-student City College of San Francisco has been struggling to stay open despite a revocation of credentials by the Accreditating Commission of Community and Junior Colleges. The largest issues have been managerial rather than academic - particularly an abdication of management by the Board (including several Democrat activists) to a system of "shared governance" by a council of teacher and administrator unions who had little interest in financial managment, made no effort to collect delinquent tuition, and offered outsized administrator salaries. Two totally unrepentant Board members are running for reelection; Thomas Moyer offers a choice for the common sense management needed to ensure the survival of the school.

California's State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson, has rejected federal funds tied to any teacher evaluation system and enthusiastically supported Common Core. In the recent Vergara case a Los Angeles judge ruled that California's teacher tenure laws cause the retention of unqualified teachers who disproportionately wind up in minority-population schools, thus violating the state's constitution which guarantees a quality education to all students. When federal Secretary of Education Arne Duncan applauded the decision, Torlakason vowed to appeal. Marshall Tuck, a former charter school executive, offers an excellent alternative.

The issues in education are universal; the manifestations and solutions are local. If America is to regain its competitive edge internationally, it is imperative that we become informed and elect local leaders who understand. Get off of the couch.

-----

This week's video is our Secretary of State explaining that the effort that we are asking global partners to join is not a war. The problem - President Obama does not want to go to Congress for approval prior to the November elections. All politics, all the time.

August 21, 2014

More and more, one hears the acknowledgement that Barack Obama was not prepared to be president. For a liberal, that is a way of avoiding discussion about his failures being due to his basic qualifications or his policies, but it is a large truth that deserves some examination. What is it that Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton learned as governors?

Let's look at a few dimensions of the chief executive position where some governor experience might have helped President Obama:

1. Hiring and firiing. A governor learns that she is dependent on staff. Obama was slow to fill his cabinet positions (with a Democratic House and Senate), and slower to discipline those who created public scandals - Fast and Furious, IRS, Benghazi, and the Obamacare rollout went unpunished; the Veterans Administration response was slow, but at least Shinseki resigned. Successful governors learn about competence, loyalty, and honest internal communications.

2. Dealing with the legislature. Reagan's relationship with Tip O'Neil is legendary. Obama rarely even talks with the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate. There are lessons in the many states where Republican governors enjoy Republican Assemblies and Senates, but the better lessons are learned where cooperation across the aisle is necessary. John Kasich of Ohio who passed legislation to restrict public employee unions, then had it overturned in a referendum, has learned and moved on and is cruising to reelection in November.

3. Balancing budgets. Although there is some creative accounting, states are required to balance their budgets. The federal government has a printing press. The public gets it. Advantage Republicans and Democrat governors who have learned how to deliver the bad news to disappointed constituencies.

4. Crisis management. Florida governors are required to prepare for and manage hurricanes. In Louisiana, Governor Blanco lost it during Katrina while Bobby Jindal gets high grades for his handling of the BP Gulf oil spill. Jay Nixon in Miissouri is losing it with his call for "vigorous prosecution" of the Ferguson police officer before any investigation. Jerry Brown faces his crisis swith the California drought. Some crises are opponent-manufactured for political gain - Chris Cristie's "Bridgegate" in New Jersey; Rick Perry's indictment for abuse of power in Texas. Lessons learned - the first round of information is usually wrong; the media will settle on a (generally liberal) story line and run with it; political opponents will magnify it; a persona of controlled calm is good.

The task of governing is important in itself, but the implications for the down ticket health of the party and for grooming presidential candidates are also great.

The Republican advantage in governorships is bigger than the 29 to 21 lead suggests. Of the large states, Republicans hold Texas (Perry), Florida (Scott), Pennsylvania (Corbett), Michigan (Snyder), and Ohio (Kasich), while the Democrats hold California (Brown), Illinois (Quinn), and New York (Cuomo), with only Cuomo seemingly a presidential candidate. (Democrats O'Mally in Maryland and Duval in Massachusetts may also be players.) Most of the swing Midwest states are Republican, including Walker in Wisconsin. Of the five women governors, four are Republicans (Brewer in Arizona; Martinez in New Mexico; Haley in South Carolina; Fallin in Oklahoma); of the five ethnic minority governors, four are Republicans (Haley and Martinez, plus Jindal in Louisiana; amd Sandoval in Nevada.) Some will undoubtedly lose reelection bids, but that is a large field to work with, and one that demonstrates true diversity within the Party.

-----

This week's video is an introduction to Dr. Ben Carson for those who do not know him (talking about Ferguson, starting at minute 1:06).

August 14, 2014

For the past six years leftist progressive and labor-oriented centrist Democrats have been united behind Barack Obama who has had no interest in working with the Republicans, and only slightly more in working with his own party. Without a clear party leader, the Republican Establishment and the Tea Party factions have filled most of the public's appetite for stories of political infighting. The Lame Duck years of the Obama presidency will be quite different.

The first interesting question is whether the progressive wing of the Democrat party will re-pay Hillary for her years of loyalty and the critical support that Bill provided Obama in the 2012 election. To their chagrin, "Hillary the Inevitable" has the problem that she needs to distance herself from Obama's increasingly unpopular foreign policy - no easy task since she was its face for four years. She has started early with her Atlantic interview which laid the blame for ISIS's rise to Obama's dithering in Syria, and rebuked Obama's overall foreign policy with “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid s___’ is not an organizing principle." The White House, Maureen Dowd, and Bloomberg have all responded predictably. Clinton's calculation is that she must be innoculated from the "who lost Iraq?" discussion, and there is enough time for the progressives to get over it and get on her bandwagon. The maneuver may require more personal skills than she and Obama posess.

The broader rift between the Obama and Clinton camps goes back to the 2008 nomination battle when, for example, the Huffington Post dismissed her Senate career with " There is not one single example of any legislation with her name appended to it." (One could say the same about her time at State.) Progressives will never foregive her for her vote for the Iraq War. Elizabeth Warren will be available as an alternative vision - genuine; strident; against Clinton's many Wall Street friends. The division is real, and will be evident, at least until there is a clear Republican opponent.

The second big difference comes with the likely Republican control of the Senate. (2012 master prognosticator Nate Silver puts the odds at 60-40; The Washington Post puts it at 82%; Real Clear Politics projects a pick-up of 7 seats - one more than needed.) What would a Republican Senate mean?

- While there would be some grumbling among the Tea Party segment, Mitch McConnell would be the Majority Leader (assuming a win in Kentucky.)

- We'd be safe for a couple of years from another Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagen.

- The "do nothing" point would move from Harry Reid's desk to Obama's. As of the end of July there had been some 350 bills passed by the House only to go to Harry Reid's Senate to die. Many were relatively trivial, and a symbolic batch dealt with repealing Obamacare, but many others dealt wiith jobs, veterans affairs, natural resources, and the whole gamut of government activity. The most recent major example of Senate purgatory was the House's $694 million response to the surge in young illegal immigrants. Without Harry Reid, presidential vetoes will abound, but more will also get done.

- Republicans would have an ability to frame the 2016 presidentiial election. Some things are easy - Hillary's State Department would not approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; a Republican Senate would present an early Obama veto challenge. Hopefully John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will be able to present a string of Republican alternatives - some of Paul Ryan's budget thinking; tax reform; immigration reform; adjustments to Obamacare - that will demonstrate that Republicans do have ideas to get us out of this 65% "wrong track" rut - if only they had a president that they could work with.

-----

This week's video is a short example of Robin Williams at his quick-witted best.

July 31, 2014

Premise: For 2016, the Democratic establishment has decided to go with the old, white woman with the philandering husband, who played a major role in ending Pax Americana, and who has ammassed a modest fortune by giving speeches to Corporate sponsors. For the progressive Left who exulted in making history by electing an African American president, all of the significant Hispanic and Asian politicians are in the wrong party. The woman thing offers an encore and foreign policy doesn't much matter, but Hillary's Corporate sell-out is a bridge too far. So what are the alternatives?

Enter Elizabeth Warren - perhaps the only significant politician other than Rick Perry who is sincerely committed to reforming Wall Street. If there were any doubt about the leadership of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, it was dispelled at the recent NetRoots Conference - a less-developed version of the Conservative Political Action Conference - which brought out 3000 activist supporters screaming "Run, Liz, Run"! Understanding the audience and the optics, Hillary chose not to attend.

Warren does have a legitimate set of credentials: relatively self-made; working mother; Harvard Law professor (oops; been there, done that); chair of the outside panel of experts to implement the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) in 2009; driving force behind the creation of the Consumer Finacial Protection Agency in 2010; defeated Scott Brown for the "Kennedy Senate Seat" in 2012. There have been a few hiccups - like the resume-enhancing claim to be part Cherokee - but overall she has been circumspect.

Whether Warren mounts a challenge, or just provides the populist rhetoric for Hillary, she has her Eleven Points of slogans which bring rousing applause at all of her campaign speeches:

"1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it.

2. We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.

3. We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.

4. We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.

5. We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.

6. We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.

7. We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.

8. We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.

9. We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America.

10. We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.

11. And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"

It is hard to imagine Warren being elected. Her place on the ticket would reinforce the Democrats as the party of the Northeast liberals. Those with longer memories will recall Michael Dukakis' disasterous campaign against George H.W. Bush in 1988, and liberal George McGovern's 1972 campaign against Dick Nixon in which he carried only Massachusetts and Washington D.C. Beyond that, where Michelle Obama would force schools to put brussel sprouts on school lunch menus, Elizabeth Warren leaves the "know-it-all" impression that she would force kids to actually eat them.

Politics is part message and part messenger. The difficulty for the Democrats is that Elizaberth Warren's message excites the progressive left, but rings hollow from the mouth of Hillary Clinton.

-----

This week's video - a 2009 takedown of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner by Elizabeth Warren - demonstrates a significant anti-Wall Street agreement between the populist Left and the populist Right.

July 17, 2014

On July 7, the Restore Transportation Balance initiative submitted over 17,500 signatures to qualify for the November ballot in San Francisco. While the initiative is local, there are lessons to be learned by any group facing government overreach.

1. Address an issue which affects the real lives of a majority of the voters.

In any jusisdiction dominated by one party or ideology there are inevitably policies which are out of balance, calling for redress. This could be in education, housing, public safety, or many other areas. In San Francisco, one is transportation.

2. Understand the root causes of the imbalance.

San Francisco is second only to Manhattan in terms of urban density. There is no real subway, and a very limited freeway system. Conflict over the use of streets is inevitable.

In 1973 San Francisco adopted a "transit first" policy which has subsequently morphed into "public transit and bicycles only". By charter, the problematic public transit system, the Department of Parking and Traffic, and the taxi industry are governed by a board which must be dominated by regular transit riders. Predictably, despite the fact that most households (79%) find a need for a car to live their actual lives, the MTA's intent is to force people out of cars by making their use expensive and inconvenient.

As a backdrop, the MTA has a multi-billion dollar plan, Transportation 2030, to restructure the City's street network to prioritize bus and bicycles while significantly reducing lanes for cars and eliminating thousands of parking spaces without replacement. Funding sources include greater fees for cars, general obligation bonds, and a Vehicle License Fee which will annually cost some $350 for a $25,000 car.

3. Understand the opposition.

Like the military-industrial complex, there is an incestuous relationship of employment and City funding of studies between the MTA and advocacy groups such as Livable City. The mayor has been complicit in not appointing anybody to speak for car owners or merchants. The Board of Supervisors has been detached.

4. Understand the process.

Election law is arcane, particularly in California where much legislation is done by public referendum - drafting proposition language, getting approved petitions to circulate, validating signatures and circulators, writing arguments for the voter pamphlet, filing campaign finance statements, reporting of donor information. Experts are needed.

Money is also needed. Fundraising is difficult, but if there really is enough enthusiasm for the effort - and if victory seems possible - it will be available. Large donors help greatly, but Restore Balance's significant number of smaller donors is essential.

5. Build alliances.

First, understand the nature of the public's grievances. Restore Balance has received the endorsement of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, the Council of District Merchants Associations, The West of Twin Peaks Council, and many other grass roots organizations and notable individuals. A majority of the Board of the Chamber of Commerce is in support. Political philosophies and partisan affiliations vary all over the landscape, but the advocates from all areas of the City coalesce around the same objectives.

6. Have a strategy. Stay focused.

Messaging is critical. One usually has but a minute or two to explain the initiative. The Retore Balance premise is simple - An effective and efficient public transportation system is essential, but San Francisco needs a broader set of transportation policies which serve all of the people of the City - including the majority of households who need cars to live their daily lives.

Develop an extensive network of volunteers. Restore Balance has an energized network of well over 100 committed volunteers with an exceptional coordinator, an extensive data base, and frequent communications with an emphasis on celebrating success.

Develop a comprehensive communications strategy - op-eds in major newspapers; interviews on radio and television; a frequently updated web site; social media; on-line news outlets; public appearances.

Of high importance, ensure that the spokesmen stay on message. A broad coalition will have divergent views; the opposition will be eager to misrepresent the nature of the initiative - and vilify the background of the proponents.

So far, so good.

-----

No video this week. For unexplained reasons You Tube has taken down any version of Hillary's comments on the Ukraine aircraft crisis (good going on that "reset"), and any version of Joe Biden's comments that the Change that Obama talked about in 2008 had failed (2016 candidate Biden creating a little distance.) Maybe next week the NSA will calm down and on-line videos will again be avaialable.

July 10, 2014

This week's essay is a departure from the norm. On Wednesday I attended a screening of Dinesh D'Souza's "America: Imagine A World Without Her" followed by a Q & A with the author/producer in San Francisco. The documentary itself and the reaction to it are worth several comments.

First, some brief background:

- Since college days at Dartmouth D'Souza has been a friend of Harmeet Dhillon, the SF GOP Chair and the Vice Chair of the California Republican Party. He has spoken at the party's annual fundraiser and knows the San Francisco audience. In person he is mellow and charming. In politics he is fearless.

- This is D'Souza's second film after 25 years of conservative writing and lecturing. The first, "2016: Obama's America" was released before the 2012 election, and dealt with the background of Barack Obama. Despite criticism from the media, it took in $33.5 million in revenue and was among the top viewed documentaries of all time.

Without giving away too much of the new film, it addresses the premise of the Left that America has stolen its success - from the Indians; through the 1840's war with Mexico; through slavery; through foreign imperialism; through abuse of the working class. For each claim he allows a prominent progressive thought leader to make their case, then proceeds to fill in the rest of the history to conclude with that the idea of America and the evolving social and political system has been a tremendous force for good in the world. That sounds trite, but the film is not, and it contains a number of "gosh, why didn't I know that" moments - like the connection between the anti-establishment radical Saul Alinsky and Hillary Clinton.

As interesting as the book and the movie are, the reaction of the gate keepers of American political culture is more so:

- Just before the launch of the movie in 1100 theaters, Costco - run by a major Democrat donor - abruptly discontinued sale of the book which had been released a month earlier. Faced with substantial consumer backlash - and the book reaching #1 on Amazon - they reversed course two days later claiming that the decision had nothing to do with politics and was due to inadequate sales.

- In late June the book was left off of the New York Times best seller list for hardcover non-fiction which included less well-selling books by Elizabeth Warren and Timothy Geithner.

- In the arcane world of "Search Engine Optimization", Google searches to find where the new movie is playing have been coming up with his prior film, a 1929 silent movie, or a 2009 Rosie O'Donnell film. Technical issues to be sure.

One sour note - D'Souza recently pleaded guilty to reimbursing two associates for their political contributions and faces up to two years in jail at the discretion of a (hopefully Republican) New York judge. Such is the world of hardball politics in 2014 America.

So, the call to action - try to find your way through the Google maze to find one of the 1100 theaters playing "America: Imagine a World Without Her" and go with a group of friends.

-----

Here's a Texas Democrat Congressman discussing President Obama's response to the border crisis on MSNBC - shortly before he was told by the White House to shut up.

July 03, 2014

Just a few months ago the "Inevitable Hillary" was struggling to identify any accomplishments during her tenure as Secretary of State. Those were the Good Old Days for Campaign Hillary.

Back in 1969 Dean Acheson wrote a book titled "Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department" about his role as an architect of the post - World War II international structure. The Marshall Plan for Europe, the founding of the United Nations; the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the Central Treaty Organization for South Asia; the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization; the Korean War. For three generation we have generally enjoyed the benefits of a largely stable world order and the spread of prosperity and human rights around the world with America's leadership in large part because of the vision and leadership of Acheson and a handful of his peers. As World War II, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao recede into history the majority of Americans assume that the latter half of the 20th Century was the norm and that this construct of the world will last because of its own virtue. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Enter Barack Obama and his Secretary of State. Where Acheson and many of his peers were statesmen motivated by a vision with enough political skill to put in place, for the past six years we have had the reverse - a president who is suspect of America's historic place in the world and a politician in a holding pattern. Together they have demonstrated a cautionary tale about how frail the world order is.

While Acheson and his peers inherited a world exhausted by World War II it was not an easy playing field. Stalin's Soviet Union controlled eastern Europe and Mao's China threatened east Asia. Both had proxies in the Middle East and in Latin America. In contrast, Obama and Clinton inherited a dissolved Soviet Union, a militarily quiescient China interested in rapid economic growth, an expanding European Union, a pacified Iraq, and the opportunity of an Arab Spring. The world economic order had been shaken by the near-collapse of 2008, but the world's central bankers and the trillion dollar Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) had laid the groundwork for recovery.

So what has been the result of the Hillary's time at Foggy Bottom - "leading from behind", the Reset with Russia, and the Pivot to Asia?

- The most obvious catastrophic failure is the establishment of a self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate in the center of the ancient Muslim world. Numerous threads led to this result - the complete exit from Iraq, the bumbling of the effort to oust Assad in Syria, even the pointless Afghan War - and the blame belongs more to Obama than to Hillary Clinton, but the Secretary's complicity is captured in her "what difference does it make?" question about Benghazi. It makes a great deal of difference whether the attack was just some guys out for a walk or evidence of a resurgent Islamist movement. She missed it.

- The changed dynamic of the general boundary between the European Union and Russia - highlighted by the conflict in Ukraine - is a less significant change to the world order. It was probably inevitable that the EU's expansion to the east would stop once Putin had stabilized Russia's energy-dominated economy, but American policy under Clinton missed the change and we are back to a milder feel of the Cold War with Russia interrupting energy supplies and filling the gap of our inaction by sending military aid to Iraq and playing the fiddler in Syria.

- Between the nascent caliphate and the resurgent Russia in importance is the realization by our allies that the Obama / Clinton version of America cannot be counted on. The 70 year Japanese renunciation of offensive military capabilities is ending with a territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea leading to the development of offensive capabilities. Saudi Arabia, watching America's performance in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, is searching for alternatives in conjunction with with the other Gulf States. This is the stuff of diplomacy - where strategic visions of mutual self-interest are critical, personal relationships are important, and chits are called in. Obama and Hillary have no chits.

The waning enthusiasm for Hillary is being attributed to an uninspiring book tour , but the reality is more problematic for Team Clinton - for most of the Obama administration she has been the primary architect and agent of American foreign policy which is unravelling at every turn.

-----

This week's video is a trailer for Dinesh D'Souza's film "America" which is currently being released in theaters nationally.

June 05, 2014

When Jim Brulte and Harmeet Dhillon assumed control of the California Republican Party in 2013 times were bleak. The Party was significantly in debt; all of the state-wide offices were held by Democrats; Democrats were on the verge of enjoying super-majorities in the state Senate and Assembly; the conventional wisdom was that Hispanic demographics would make the GOP permanently irrelevant. But, in life nothing is inevitable, and the Republicans did have a few things going for them: lots of people in California have lots of money and at least a few are Republicans; prominent California Republicans in the US Congress - particularly Kevin McCarthy and Darrell Issa - were willing to spend time helping the state party; and the new leadership had a plan to focus on party building rather than policy debates. Results are showing.

By the March 2014 Convention the Party had paid off the debt. In special elections where not much else was happening, Republicans were able to marshall state-wide volunteers and contributors to win a Senate seat in Fresno with Andy Videk and the mayorship of San Diego with Kevin Faulconer. Ruben Barrales' Grow Elect was able to recruit, nurture, and support local-level Hispanic Republican candidates, winning over 50 positions as small city mayors, county supervisors, and other entry-level political positions.

With that background, this week's primary elections were encouraging. (Full results here.) The headline goes to Democrat Jerry Brown's 54 % victory, due largely to the public's understanding that a responsible adult needs to be in charge to prevent the Democratic legislature from doing further damage to California's balance sheet and economy. But for the first time in awhile there were several encouraging signs for Republicans in a state where the incumbent Democratic stars are all past their normal political expiration dates - Brown (76) whose position would be open in 2018; Diane Feinstein (80) who would be up for election in 2018; Barbara Boxer (73) who would be up in 2016; and Nancy Pelosi (74). Following state tradition, the leading next generation Democrats are San Franciscans, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Kamilla Harris, but the Republicans are building a bench and may not need to rely on wealthy celebrities to parachute in from outside as did Arnold Schwartznegger in 2003, Meg Whitman in 2010, and Carly Fiorina in 2010. Some headlines:

- Establishment moderate Neel Kashkari's (19%) victory over Tea Party favorite Tim Donnelly (15%) for the right to compete with Governor Brown in November avoided the risk of a "Todd Akin moment" with an underfunded candidate seeking free publicity and making national news gaffes. Equally important, Kashkari will have a chance to demonstrate to the people of California that he is like the governor - smart; socially moderate; financially conservative; and bald.

- Ashley Swearengin, the highly acclaimed mayor of Fresno, won the primary vote for Controller, a position which Republicans have not held since 1975, and will face Jophn Perez, the termed-out leader of the state Assembly. With voters in a mood to support the governor's plan to pay down debt while building a rainy day fund and showing concern about one-party rule, Mayor Swearengin has some wind at her back.

- LA Times-endorsed Republican Pete Peterson, the director of a public policy think tank at Pepperdine who had a virtual tie for first at 30%, will face off against state Senator Alex Padilla for Secretary of State in another race for a position that would normally be associated with good government and a minimum of partisan positioning. (Cynics will note that state Senator Leland Yee who was indicted for corruption and gun-running and dropped out of the race received 289,000 votes in a testament to the vagaries of democracy.) Pete is a second viable state-wide candidate with a future.

- Most interesting has been Assembly District 16 in the East Bay, where Republican Catharine Baker won with 36% of the vote. In a microcosm of California politics, all of the publicity went to the contest between labor leader Tim Sbranti and pro-business Democrat Steve Glazer with the back story that California politics is now a battle between the two wings of the Democratic Party and those interested in access to government power should avoid Republicans. Not so fast. Baker is well positioned to win in November - particularly against the labor side of the Democratic party.

When California's system of open primaries with the top two finishers meeting in the November election was implemented in 2012, there was a question about whether it would increase the options for the voters at the expense of the partisan operatives, driving candidates to the middle. At least in 2014, it seems to leave some space for young Republicans to bloom.

-----

To understand the Bergdahl - Taliban swap, and its incentive for terrorists to take hostages during the remainder of the Obama administration one should listen closely to the President's rationale. At least this mess diverted attention from the Veterans Administration scandal, which diverted attention from the Ukraine petition, which diverted attention from the 160,000 dead in Syria, which diverted attention from the Benghazi hearings. Where is Jay Carney anyway?

May 15, 2014

As Republicans jockey for the pole position for 2016 there are many potential distinguishing factors: moderate or conservative; grass roots or establishment; male or female; Anglo, Hispanic, or something else; Midwest, Southern, Northeast, or West. All of that misses the winning theme - the electorate was twice willing to go with Barack Obama who had no executive experience but offered a feel good opportunity. In 2016 the Democrats may well offer another feel good opportunity with no demonstrated past accomplishments. Whatever else the Republican candidate may have to offer, it is likely that the American voters are ready to flock to a candidate offering proven executive competence.

At this point not even the New York Times or the Washington Post is pretending that the Obama administration is competent. The roll out of Obamacare burst the bubble, but the evidence is everywhere. Six years in, the portion of the working age population actually working is at a 36 year low. Adjusted for inflation the median family income is about 5% below when Obama took office. America's standing in the world is plummeting as Obama has repeatedly been shown up by Vladimir Putin. The meaningless war in Afghanistan drags on with no objective. The Democratic Senate won't consider the President's foreign trade agenda . The Veterans' Administration keeps secret lists of those to receive attention while others die waiting. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the NSA, and the IRS run out of control. The 60% to 30% "wrong track" polling is about more than ideology.

The 2016 election will not be about Barack Obama, but it will be conducted with an electorate which has witnessed first hand the impact of an ineffective leader. Fortunately for Republicans, it looks as if the media will be willing to ask what Hillary actually accomplished at State. Benghazi - events and decisions before, during, and after? The Keystone XL pipeline decision avoidance? Now we find that Hillary's State Department rejected intelligence and law enforcement entreaties to place Boko Haram, the abductors of Nigerian schoolgirls and the murderers of thousands of civilians, on the terrorist watch list. Maybe the folks setting the stage for her campaign can point to something in her earlier history? Monica or Jennifer? A failed healthcare reform effort? Whitewater? The void is as big as Obama's ... and she had a platform.

So, where can a candidate demonstrate "executive competence? Mitt Romney and Michael Bloomberg have shown that business success leads to wealth which leads to a successful Democratic campaign of class warfare. Better is a successful stint as governor with experince in appointing subordinates and holding them accountable, balancing budgets, addressing unfunded pension liabilities, upgrading education, offering a free market alternative to Obamacare, and dealing with a crisis or two. With 29 current Republican governors and a few retreads, there are plenty of options.

How much better the debate season will be if the Republican candidates spend their time talking about their accomplishments - and Hillary's lack thereof.

-----

And in a moment of perfect farce, here is the official response to the Vice President's son (as well as a close Kerry family friend) taking board positions with a Ukranian natural gas company. Note to world: there are only two more years for supporters of the Obama administration to cash in.

May 01, 2014

The question being asked in the blogosphere and occasionally in a press conference is what Hillary actually accomplished during her "frequent flyer" tenure at State. The official Foggy Bottom response - the press office couldn't think of anything. In her own words, the best that she has been able to come up with is "setting the values and standards." The better question is: to what extent is Hillary Clinton to blame for the increasingly obvious foreign policy failure of the Obama administration? (Even Maureen Dowd is now criticizing Obama for trying to be a singles hitter.)

Let's put the foreign policy record of the Hillary Clinton era into three categories: Subjects for which the Secretary of State had primary responsibility; subjects where the Secretary had a major seat at the table, but may not have been listened to; foreign policy subjects where the president or another cabinet member rolled over her.

1. Primary responsibility:

- Benghazi. Obama and Clinton may be successful in stonewalling official investigation into who told the military to not attempt a rescue, or who came up with the "peaceful demonstration" malarkey, but the Ambassador was her guy, operating in a known unsafe environment with security procedures which did not meet State Department guidelines. The petulent "what difference does it make" testimony was the lowlight of her tenure - to be replayed ad nauseum.

- Iraq exit. Any question of State Department facilities funding should begin with the question of the $750,000,000 spent on the new Baghdad embassy in 2009-2010. The primary responsibility for negotiating a "Status of Forces" agreement (wanted by Sunni, Shia, Kurds, and the US) to ensure post-American stability rested with State. No agreement; total withdrawal; escalating sectarian conflict.

- Russia reset. Clinton famously presented the big red "Reset" button to Foreign Minister Lavrov in 2009, with a mis-translation of "reset" as "overcharged". It was an embarrasing joke at the time, but a premonition as we cancelled missile defense plans in eastern Europe, and invited Putin's Russia into the western economic system - only to be met by Putin's plans to recapture as much of the former Soviet Union as he can get away with.

2. Major seat at the table

- XL Pipeline. On paper, and probably in the early stages of debate, the decision about the XL Pipeline belonged to Hillary's State Department since it crossed national borders. (The EPA and the Department of Transportation had no objections.) For four years the disrespected government of Canada has watched American environmental politics block one of its major economic initiatives.

- Asian pivot. The Administration's code phrase for "the war on terror is won and Russia is pacified" was the "Pivot to Asia" in American foreign policy. Years later we have been unable to negotiate a trade agreement with Japan, the pan-Pacific free trade area has not gotten off of the ground, and an expansionist China is bumping into our allies in the South China Sea and the Philippines. North Korea has been delegated to Dennis Rodman to handle with his "basketball diplomacy".

- Libya - Egypt - Syria - Palestine. All major foci at points in time. No progress during Clinton's years. Some opportunities lost while "leading from behind".

- Iran. TBD. Time will tell if economic sanctions will be sufficient to convince Iranian leadership to terminate their nascent nuclear weapons program with necessary verification. If so, Hillary, Obama, and others deserve the credit that they will claim.

3. Tertiary role

- Fast and Furious. Most American discussion has been about the border patrol agent who was killed with weapons sold to a Mexican cartel as part of a sting operation. From a Mexican perspective, they were not notified of the operation, over 100 Mexicans were killed, there has not been an adequate explanation, and the Gringos don't care about them. Mostly Eric Holder's issue, but State had some role other than offering platitudes.

- Economic bailout. The response to the 2008 financial collapse was led by Hank Paulson (later Tim Geithner) at Treasury and Ben Bernanke at the Fed. One of the key decisions was to use the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) to backstop the global banking system - primarily by covering nearly 200 billion in AIG insurance obligations on mortgage instruments held by foreign banks. Sometime in 2015 the Clintonistas will probably realize that this was actually Hillary's idea, and that all of the funds have been recovered.

- Communications security. The 2010 Wikileaks disclosure of millions of classified State Department communications was a major embarrasment to the government and the largest-ever inhibitor to diplomatic dialogue - at least until Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations about the domestic and global operations of the National Security Agency. Hillary deserves neither credit nor blame, but things certainly went south on her watch.

As 2015 and 2016 unfold it will be interesting to see what Clinton tries to take credit for and how she distances herself from the administration's central theme of reducing American global leadership. Joe Biden - still a competitor for the nomination - deserves credit as lead champion for the program of killing terrorists with drone strikes, and has been a major globe-trotter himself. In fairness, John Kerry's ambitious beginning and subsequent failure in Israel/Palestine, Syria and Ukraine offers Clinton some cover - better for her that he fails. The Clintonistas will claim that nobody could have done better than Hillary did, given the hand that she was dealt; the Republicans will blame the Obama/Clinton "leading from behind" strategy for ceding the world to the Assads, the Putins, and the Xi Jinpings. Hopefuly nothing will blow up before January 2017.

April 23, 2014

Edward Miliband of Britain's Labour Party has hired David Axelrod, Barack Obama's campaign adviser extraordinaire, to help manage his Party's attempt to recapture control of the government in the May 2015 elections. Hiring talent from the former Empire is not unusual in the UK - the Conservatives are hiring Jim Messina of the 2012 Obama campaign and Lynton Crosby from Australia for their campaign - but the big news across the Pond is Axelrod.

Premise: David Axelrod who was with Obama for his 2006 Senate run as well as his two presidential elections, mastered three things.

First, it was necessary to make middle class Americans comfortable with an African American whose father and step-father were Muslims, whose mother was an expatriate who largely abandoned him, whose mentors included a card-carrying communist in Hawaii as well as Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, who had just a few years of undistinguished state legislative experience, and who had no executive experience or accomplishments. Somehow they pulled it off with a couple of autobiographical books, a lot of flowery speeches, a pliant media, and an American public which wanted to demonstrate its racial tolerance. Axelrod should be comfortable with the bland Miliband, an Oxford/London School of Economics graduate and Harvard lecturer with a prominent Marxist intellectual father.

Second, "Big Data" and social media were ready for politics. Howard Dean had demonstrated the power of the internet for political fundraising in 2004, and there was a logical marriage between the enthusiastic young Democrat activists and the emerging technology. When Axelrod retreated from Washington to Chicago to develop the infrastructure for 2012, he was clearly on the correct path. The tools of Facebook, Twitter, and databases will be the same for the UK, but one year may not be enough to organize the human part of the equation and the kids may not be as inclined to Labour and Mileband as they were to the Democrats and Obama.

Third, Axelrod and Obama - who campaigned eloquently about uniting America - have been masters at the politics of division. While the Republicans have plodded along advocating ideas - balanced budgets, individual liberty, the job creating power of small business, American exceptionalism - Obama has been a genius at stoking the idea of a "War on Women", the oppression of illegal immigrants, and the greed of the 1%. Whether because Obama is unable to make decisions or because there was political advantage in letting things such as the Afghan War, immigration reform, or the XL Pipeline fester, there is little question that America is more divided today than it was when Obama assumed power in 2008. London beware.

Her Majesty's United Kingdom may not be as able as America to withstand the divisiveness of an Axelrod campaign or the "leading from behind" Obama style. Scotland will decide whether to end some 300 years of union with England in a September 2014 referendum, potentially leaving questions of the currency, splitting the public debt, blame for the UK break-up, and a myriad of other issues to influence the 2015 UK elections. Then there are the British immigration issues, both from the poorer countries of the European Union and from the former British colonies in Africa and South Asia. The Brits even have a rough equivalent of the Tea Party for Axelrod to trash - the nascent United Kingdom Independence Party which opposes the growing role of the European Union. And Axelrod should have a heyday with the always-popular "growing inequality of wealth" theme, made more politically exploitable in the UK by the anachronistic class structure.

From an American perspective, it is good to have Axelrod moving on. He has demonstrated an ability to do a lot with not much. Our loss is likely to be London's loss. Hopefully Hillary will use the same folks that she did in 2008.

April 10, 2014

In any contest - a basketball game, a business deal, a military battle, a political campaign - it is occasionally useful to reflect on how things must look from the other guy's point of view. In politics one has to work through the puff pieces, the propaganda, and the confusing mounds of data and opinion, but it is still useful to think about President Obama's coalition - who they are; what they wanted; what they are getting; how they must feel about the reward for their support. Let's look at a few subsets of the Obama coalition:

1. African Americans

- While the official unemployment rate among whites is 6.7%, it is 13.4 % among African Americans, only slightly down from the 14.8% in 2009. Five years into the administration which received 93% of the African American vote, little progress has been made in the most fundamental of needs - jobs.

- Part of the reason for the high unemployment among African Americans is the presence of 11 million illegal Hispanic immigrants competing for low end jobs. A higher minimum wages is portrayed as part of the general "fairness" agenda favorable to all minorities, but any discussion of amnesty for illegals plays poorly in the African American community.

- There have been large payoffs, the greatest being some $1.5 billion for Black farmers who claimed discrimination in farm loan programs - often with little documentation or investigation.

- The commotion about the growing gap between the haves and the have nots is particularly relevant for Hispanics. It really doesn't matter if the Dow is up 100%; the continuing 12.4% Latino unemployment rate does matter and they are largely among the have-nots.

- Latinos are potentially among the greatest beneficiaries of Obamacare, although the administration doesn't have a breakdown of the enrollees yet.

3. Professional Single Women

- Healthcare is a more important issue for women than for men and Obama has certainly given it his all. Amid all of the problems, it is popular with younger single women with its mandated contraception and morning after pills.

- Equal Pay is always a good Democrat wedge issue with the President crowing about how terrible it is that women still only receive 77% of what men earn on the average without mentioning that the gap is substantially smaller if comparing equivalent jobs, educations, and years in the work force. (Women are more prevalent in lower-paying healthcare and education; men in manufacturing and construction.) Buried in Obama's proclamations is the fact that in the White House women receive only 88% of what the men are paid. But it is good politics.

- Given the looming Hillary candidacy the energy of this group remains high.

4. Gays and Lesbians

- As the acceptance of same sex marriage makes its way state-by-state and court-by-court, Obama has "evolved" from opposition to apparent indifference.

- In a stunning rejection of constitutional democracy, Eric Holder has declared that state attorneys general are not obligated to uphold the law if they do not agree with it, unleashing all sorts of future mischief for future politically ambitious state AGs.

5. The Lower Working Class

- The question is whether the masses hold the president responsible for an economy which most still think to be in recession four years into a technical recovery. The average worker doesn't care about the 6.7 % unemployment rate, the fact that work force participation is the lowest in 35 years, and that we have just recently reached the number of employed workers that we had in 2008. What he does know is that work is scarce and the income of those with work is shrinking.

- The administration has done a good job of vilifying Republicans for opposing budget-busting programs to soften the blow of the Obama economy, but what people need is decent jobs and at least viscerally many understand that the war on job creators does have a trickle down effect.

6. The kids

- Being able to stay on your parents insurance is cool, but being forced to buy your own is not.

- There is a moment of new awareness upon college graduation when one realizes that the average debt is over $29,000 and the unemployment rate for those 16 to 24 is 15% - nearly 30% for those with just a high school degree. At least you can always go on to law school.

- Perhaps most importantly, the fiasco of the Obamacare roll-out and the individual mandate force a rethinking of whether it is appropriate for the federal government to address societal issues which have historically been decided at lower governmental levels or by the individual.

As we head into the 2014 House and Senate elections there will be a lot of discussion about how Republicans always do better when there is no presidential election on the ballot; this time the Democrats also have the problem that Obama has been great at speeches, but his policies and his lackadaisical governing have not delivered on the things that motivated his coalition. For Republicans to win they don't need to win over Obama's base, they just need to have Obama's supporters decide that Utopia ended with the speeches.

-----

This week's video is a repeat from last Fall. Everyone should watch Louisiana state Senator Elbert Guillory's explanation of why he switched to being a Republican.

April 03, 2014

Let's try to learn something from the Obamacare rollout - not just what the New York Times trumpets, but not just what the Drudge Report headlines claim either. There really is some learning here.

- This may be the last gasp of the Obama election turnout machine before he fades as a force in elections. The publicly-funded hundred million dollar advertising campaign and army of "navigators"; the celebrity endorsers; the mainstream media publicizers; the daily social media exhortations of Organizing for America working with the carrot of more free stuff and the stick of the individual mandate got 7 million folks to fight their way through the complexity and the HHS' technical ineptitude. The President's palpable relief is understandable.

- There is good reason that Sibelius cannot answer the obvious and easily-answerable questions about the numbers - how many of the sign-ups were previously insured; how many had had their insurance cancelled; how many have actually paid their premiums; what are the demographics of the enrollees? When this journey began in 2009, the claim was that we had to take care of the 50 million uninsured. The administration likes to tout the 7.1 million signed up on the exchanges, the 4 million signed up for expanded Medicaid (about half being normal annual adds), and the 3 million kids being added added under the "slacker-care" provisions. Net, net, Forbes' analysis suggests the total number of beneficiaries at about 7 million.

- The insurance company actuaries are working overtime. The lack of disclosure of the age/gender/medical condition mix of enrollees suggests that the premiums and deductables for middle class folks who do not qualify for subsidies will most likely need to be bumped significantly (again) in the rates for 2015 to be announced shortly before the November elections. This is, after all, a transfer from the upper and middle income classes to the subsidy-entitled lower class with the money coming partly from direct tax-payer subsidies and the rest from mandate-driven insurance rates.

- The public is not much concerned about fraud. According to Rasmussen just 19% of likely voters think that the IRS should use their resources to police the "honor system" income claims of those seeking subsidies. Obama's permission slip to ignore the deadline for sign ups drew hardly a yawn. Such is the state of American ethics.

- The 2014 Congressional elections will see "Big Data" Get Out the Vote efforts, with Democrats using the contact information of the 7 million enrollees (and the 4 million added to Medicare), and the Republicans using that of the millions who had their policies cancelled. Fortunately for Republicans, many of the sign-ups were in liberal states like New York and California, lost causes anyway.

- With the last six months' focus on insurance enrollment, there has been little discussion of expanded capacity. The latest "doc fix" to avoid a mandated 24% reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates sailed through Congress, preventing an exodus of doctors, and medical school enrollment is up slightly.

- The drag on the economy with a disincentive for small businesses to hire and the coming enforcement of the large employer mandate in 2015 continues unabated with the Congressional Budget Office projecting a net loss of the equivalent of some 2,000,000 workers from Obamacare's taxes and hiring disincentives.

Good for Republicans, Nancy Pelosi still thinks that Obamacare is a winning issue for Democrats in marginal districts despite being under water in the polls by about 40% to 60%. Hopefully at least a few Democrats running in Red states will believe her.

-----

This week's "bonus" is an excellent article by Dan McLaughlin of RedState about the eight points that Republicans agree on for an Obamacare replacement, and Bobby Jindal's plan. (This may help move the Louisiana governor into the top tier of 2016 candidates.) We normally end with a video, but this is too good to pass up.

March 13, 2014

Back in the day Pedro Martinez, the ace Red Sox pitcher, let slip after a losing effort against the Yankees that perhaps they were his Daddy. It seems that within the social strata where male parentage is frequently problematical, the phrase refers to a particular kind of dominance on the street. For the balance of his otherwise brilliant career, every appearance at Yankee Stadium was met by the cheer "Who's your Daddy? Who's your Daddy?"

So it is with Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin. The Obama White House and the Clinton State Department believed that a "reset" with Russia - forgetting the 2008 invasion of neighboring Georgia, unilaterally deciding to pull back on missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic; welcoming the Russians to the meetings of the major international economic powers - would solidify a partnership, to be made "more flexibile" after Obama's reelection. Enter Syria and Putin's demonstration that he knew how to play chess while Obama was struggling with checkers. Now the Ukraine. One can only hope that Putin believes it is in Russia's interest to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The domestic equivalent began when the Republicans recaptured the House in 2010, but it became painfully bipartisan when Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid declared in January that he opposed Obama's call for European Union and Asia-Pacific free trade agreements - the day after Obama had touted them in his State of the Union address. White rook to queen's knight 3. Check.

A domestic sequel occured this week when the Senate, despite the 2013 rules change to approve nominations by a simple majority vote, rejected the nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department. In picking the lead defense attorney in the liberal cause celebre case of the killing of a Philadelphia policeman in 1982, Obama and Eric Holder put too many Red State Democrats in the position of voting against the National Fraternal Order of Police which called the nomination "a thumb in the eye of our nation's law enforcement officers." White knight to king's bishop 4. Check.

Things promise to get worse. Despite objections from the deficit hawks the Republicans have decided to make Obamacare the predominant focus of of the 2014 elections. With CBS polls showing the president's approval rating down to 37% and Obamacare approval at 31%, that seems like a winning strategy - and a good opportunity to test Republican catch-up efforts on big data and social media. Look to a marriage of three data bases supporting Republican phone banks and precinct walkers: the voting records of all House and Senate members; the publicly available individual voter records for swing districts to identify who will likely be voting; and the identities of the millions of voters who have had their insurance cancelled. The Tea Party was a spontaneous uprising in 2010; this time there will be both a major media blitz and a targeted, professional Get Out The Vote effort - as seen in the Vidak and Faulconer elections in California and the Jolly election in Florida.

2015 and 2016 promise to be lonely years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as world leaders bypass Washington to visit Silicon Valley. Over his presidency Obama has not followed the lead of presidents from Reagan to Clinton and Bush to kindle personal relationships which can be called upon during a crisis - not Merkel in Germany; not Cameron in Great Britain; not Abe in Japan; not Harper in Canada; not Xi Jinping in China; not Netanyahu in Israel. With his Senate leader openly challenging him and an increasing likelihood that he will start to need to use his veto pen on legislation that is approved by both houses, he will have plenty of time to work on his golf game.

Hopefully, the nation and the world can hang on until January 2017.

-----

This week's "bonus" is a phone message by Bill Clinton in support of Alex Sink who lost a special election in the Tampa area to easily-beatable Republican lobbyist David Jolly. Sink had greater name recognition and outspent Jolly significantly in the swing district which had twice voted for Obama. Obama was in Florida on vacation but did not stop by to help the Democrat.

February 20, 2014

Before She rested on the seventh day, God created the Sierra Nevada mountains to catch a bountiful winter rain and snowfall, and a vast fertile but arid valley to the south and west. Since then California has been a story of great engineering projects to store and move water, surrounded by politics.

Let's set some background:

- California's existence as a state with 38 million people and a $45 billion agricultural industry is based on the federal Central Valley Project which dates from the 1930s and moves water from the Sierras to Central Valley ranchers and farmers, the related California State Water Project which dates from the 1950s transporting water from the Sierras down the western side of the Central Valley mostly serving some 23 million residents, and the Colorado River Aqueduct which was built by the state in the 1930s to deliver water originating in the Rocky Mountains to Los Angeles, San Diego, and other southern California cities. The first two also generate a significant portion of California's electric power.

- Each year a high pressure ridge parks itself off of the coast of California. Usually it break down, letting several winter storms through, but this year it has remained in place, pushing the storms to the north where they miss the California reservoirs and do not deliver the snowpack in the Sierras which feeds the system throughout the year. The current ridge, four miles high and 2000 miles long, has been parked in place since December of 2012. The last such occurence led to the drought of 1976-1977.

- Three years into this accelerating drought, with reservoir levels at less than 40%, some are thinking of worst case scenarios in which agriculture, which consumes 80% of California's water, will be shut down along with severe limitations on residential use and constraints on river flows which will decimate salmon and delta smelt populations. Costly and energy intensive desalination plants may be in vogue.

And the politics:

- Water politics divides the state north-south, but more significantly it divides between the coastal city dwellers/environmentalists and the inland farmers. Coastal folks are largely Democrat; inland folks, like rural people everywhere else in the country, tend to be Republican. Since all politics is local, the drought will probably not significantly impact state-wide elections, but it will put Central Valley Democrats at risk in Congressional and state legislative elections. In jeopardy are the Democrats' two-thirds majorities in the state Assembly and Senate (needed to pass tax measures), and a few House seats.

- The first salvo, a House Republican bill to override federal limits on pumping to the Central Valley from the San Juaquin-Sacramento River Delta was quickly met by a Democratic Senate bill designed to increase flexibility in regional water management decisions and support recycling efforts. The divided Congress now waits.

- The state Democrats are doing what they can without giving the farmers any more water. Governor Brown declared a state of emergency in January, cutting off water to thousands of farmers and a few central valley communities; this week the governor and Democratic legislative leaders (no Republicans invited) announced a package of $687 million in aid (available from past unused appropriations), largely for water conservation and clean drinking water projects and aid for farmers.

- At the behest of local Democrats, President Obama this week bestowed $170 million on drought-stricken California ranchers and food banks and opined how this was all due to global warming. While that appealed to the enviro-industrial complex, the reality is that many global warming models predict that California should be getting wetter. No chance goes unmet to appeal to folks like San Francisco's Tom Steyer who will donate some $100 million to Democrat "climate change" loyalists.

Meanwhile, Governor Brown has some difficult terrain to traverse if he is to make any lasting progress. His stalled $24 billion proposal to divert more Sierra water to the south by tunnelling under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta predictably has supporters in the south and opponents in the north. The companion concept of expanding reservoirs at Los Vaqueros, San Luis, and other locations makes eminent sense - except to the powerful Sierra Club which opposes inundating pristine natural settings and would like to drain the Hetch Hechy reservoir in Yosemite Park which supplies San Francisco.

To the true believers, it's not just about the fish and the oranges - there are too many people.

-----

In this week's video Secretarey of State John Kerry explains to the Indonesians that climate change is as large a threat as pandemics, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. One wonders what the Iranian mullahs think of that.

February 13, 2014

Dinesh D'Souza, conservative intellectual and producer of 2016: Obama's America, recently commented on the inverted morality of praising those who are "sitting in the wagon" and demonizing those who are "pulling the wagon". (See this video starting at minute 4:00.) D'Souz's premise has three parts:

1. There are an increasing number of people sitting in the wagon.

- The simplest statistic is the civilian labor force participation rate which has fallen 2.9% (about 7 million workers) since Obama took office to its lowest level since 1978, leaving 154.9 million employed or looking for work and 91.8 million retired, in school, home with the kids, or just dropped out. Some of the decline is a function of the aging of the Baby Boomers, but the number and quality of jobs created in the recovery since 2009 have been unusually weak.

- Viewed differently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of employers shows that the economy has added some 7.8 million jobs since the trough in February 2010, but that we are still about 860,000 short of the January 2008 peak. At the current rate of adding 100,000 to 200,000 jobs per month we should be back to 2008 levels around mid-year. In the meantime, the population has grown by 13 million.

2. Obama's policies encourage people to sit in the wagon.

- Obamacare is the big motivator. While most people think it bad that the Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.5 million people will be pushed out of the work force by the incentives in Obamacare, Jay Carney calls it a good thing that so many people will no longer be "trapped in a job".

- The Republicans have received much criticism for eliminating extended unemployment benefits four years after the recession officially ended. Some two years ago the Obama administration allowed the states to eliminate the Gingrich/Clinton requirement that people had to be actively seeking work or be in a training program to qualify.

- The Food Stamp program has nearly doubled to 47 million recipients under Obama, with a relaxation of eligibility rules and an increase in the amount available. The recent Farm Bill agreement to trim the number by about 1% brought a firestorm from the Left.

- Social Security disability recipients have increased by 3.1 million to 8.9 million in the last decade; most will never return to work.

3. The president's rhetoric and policies demonize those pulling the wagon.

- Obama's "You didn't build that; somebody else made that happen" quote was a frank statement of his view that an individual's success is not the result of one's intelligence and hard work - the inference being that the successful should be taxed more to provide the benefits of their success to the less fortunate.

- The "1%" campaign of the Left drives a broad political agenda - more tax increases; demonization of Republicans as the party of Wall Street; Republicans as enemies of the middle class. While the middle class actually tends to vote Republican, Mitt Romney's "47% comments" were instrumental in his election loss.

- Obama's tax policies have been targeted at the "wagon pullers": the 10 year $3 trillion in tax increases have been largely accomplished by raising top marginal rates, capping deductions, and increasing estate taxes as well as the many taxes included in Obamacare.

The old cynical wisdom is that the Republicans are the party of the rich, the Democrats are the party of the poor, and both try to increase their voting base. With the median family income dropping $2400 (inflation adjusted; including government payouts) on Obama's watch, he is succeeding both in getting more people into the wagon and in increasing the number of potential Democratic voters.

How much better it would be if we focused on the morality of creating good jobs.

----

This week's video is an interview with Kevin Faulconer who won a run-off election to be mayor of San Diego on Tuesday, beating a Latino opponent in a majority Democrat city, thus becoming a rising star in California Republican politics.

February 06, 2014

The most important news in the past week was not the humiliation of Peyton Manning, the arrest of a leading Bitcoin entrepreneur, or the drug death of another Hollywood celebrity; it was not even the Congressional Budget Office revelation that Obamacare will cost over 2,000,000 jobs. It was the break between al Queda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Let's explain:

The act itself was simple. Last April the leader of the Iraq-based ISIL, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, decided to expand his insurgency operations from western Iraq and join the growing civil war in Syria. The problem was that there was another al Queda affiliate, the Nusra Front, already operating in Syria as part of the chaotic anti-Assad coalition. Al Queda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, told ISIS that their franchise territory was limited to Iraq, but Abu Bakr ignored the instructions, tried unsuccessfully to take control of the Nusra Front, was a successful recruiter of foreign fighters in Syria, and had some striking military successes. On Monday Zawahiri had had enough and excommunicated Abu Bakr's organization in favor of the Nusra Front.

This is a disagreement about personalities and tactics rather than strategic objectives. Both Sunni groups are committed to the overthrow of Bashir Assad's Shia Allawite regime. Both groups seek to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in the center of what was once the center of the Sunni Muslim Caliphate. (Damascus was the capital of the Umuyyad dynasty from 661 to 750; Baghdad was the capital of the Abbasid dynasty from 750 to 1258.) Tactically, al Queda and their franchise Nusra Front are willing to work with a broader coalition to remove Assad while seeking popular support; abu Bakr is committed to using suicide bombers, foreign fighters, and the intimidation of civilians that have marked the rebellion in Iraq. Al Queda is the modarate.

The rise of ISIL should be viewed in the broader Middle East context. The Levant refers to the general area along the Mediterranean between Turkey and Egypt - today's Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine. The western reaches of ISIL's current operations include not only Syria, but also Lebanon where they have been attacking the Shia militia Hezbollah and a local jihadist has established an ISIL branch. Jordanian and Palestinian leaders are keeping their heads down, fearing ISIL more than Assad. The Syrian civil war has also been spreading back eastward into bordering Iraq, where the Sunni population has been enflamed by the arrest of prominent Sunni leaders by the Shia-dominated government of Kamal al-Maliki. ISIL-led fighters have recently captured Ramadi and Falluja and are becoming more aggressive in Baghdad, as the Obama administration has been searching for a way to recover the stability which has been lost since we withdrew in December 2011.

This expanding Syrian civil war provides some lessons from the Obama/Clinton Middle East policy that should guide the Obama/Kerry team if policy can trump politics:

- The retention of a small NATO force in Iraq could have mediated between the Shia Malaki government and the Sunni leaders in western Iraq, precluding the rise of the al Queda ISIL franchise. We are faced with a similar question in Afghanistan where a small NATO presence would also enable the maintenance of a level of engagement against al Queda's headquarters in Pakistan. We should not make the same mistake twice.

- The administration's domestic political message prior to Benghazi - that the killing of bin Laden and many of his top lieutenants had effectrively ended the jihadist threat - was clearly wrong. This is the answer to Hillary's "what difference does it make?" rant: the Benghazi attack was not just some guys out for a walk; the jihadists are alive and well and regrouping. Our friends in the region are at severe risk if we do not recognize the escalating threat and continue to treat military and intelligence capabilities focused on the jihadist threat as a high priority.

- Our dithering inaction in Syria - not arming the pro-west opposition early on - was a mistake which led to not only a protractred civil war with over 130,000 killed, but also to a potential jihadist sanctuary, not in the mountains of Afghanistan, but in the center of the old Muslim empire. That cannot be allowed to happen.

-----

This week's video is a Weather Channel explanation of why global warming is responsible for this season's extremely cold winter. Perhaps next month they can explain the record expansion of ice coverage at the South Pole.

January 30, 2014

1. We are faced with three years of a lame duck. President Obama will not try to work with Congress and has no illusions of accomplishing much that is significant. He has not rethought Obamacare, the NSA, tax policy, energy policy, or anything else that is holding back the economy. We can probably live with that domestically; unfortunately, President Putin, Xi Jinping, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of Iran also understand his powerlessness.

2. The theme of income inequality will dominate President Obama's rhetoric, in a virtuous feedback loop with the media and the Left. The political challenge for conservatives is to preserve and enhance those institutions which make America the world's greatest "land of opportunity" while balancing personal responsibility and a "social safety net." There is much practical experience on our side.

Some thoughts:

1. Unemployment is the primary problem. The poverty rate among those with full time work is 3%; for those without it is 33%. The predominant emphasis needs to be on increasing full time employment. Many of President Obama's policy positions - on energy, on taxes, on Obamacare, on the minimum wage - work against job creation.

2. Progress has been made since Lyndon Johnson started the "War on Poverty" 50 years ago. The official poverty rate has been reduced from 19% to 15%. (Other measures show more improvement.) For seniors, Social Security and Medicare have helped reduce it from 35% to 9%. Opportunity has been spread more broadly with better access to education at k-12 and college levels. Racial and gender discrimination has been reduced. However, in the aggregate the ability to climb the economic ladder has remained about the same over decades. It is still hard to get off of the bottom rung and the top rung is not very crowded.

3. The largest correlation with poverty is single parent families. When the "War on Poverty" began some 93% of babies were born into two parent families; now it is about 60%. The poverty rate for single parent families is about 37%; for two parent families it is about 7%. Rick Santorum had it right with his advice to get an education, get a job, and get married before having kids. A leader with Obama's following could do a lot of good if he preached a bit of tough love. Good policy; bad politics; won't happen.

4. It is a blinding flash of the (politically unspeakable) obvious that the presence of 11 million low-skilled illegal immigrants exerts a substantial downward pressure on the economic well-being of lower and lower-middle class Americans. Given enough time the growth of the economy will absorb most of the impact, but it is a significant part of the reason that the poor are where they are and the unconstrained influx must be stopped.

5. If the public is to support a government safety net, it must contain only a minimal amount of corruption. President Obama's decision in 2012 to amend, by executive order, the work requirement of President Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform Act went badly in the wrong direction. Ditto the loosened requirements that have seen food stamps hover around 47 million recipients - about twice the level of a decade ago. Ditto the honor system for Obamacare subsidies.

6. For the young American, it is not enough to get a college degree. Stories abound about the 15% of US cab drivers that have a college degree and the reality that about half of recent college graduates are not employed in jobs requiring a degree. The simple answer? Not only does more education still correlate highly with lower unemployment and higher wages, but prospects are vastly better for healthcare workers, teachers, and natural resource professionals than for artists and humanities majors. Opportunity is not only for IT workers.

Outside of Washington - and particularly at the individual level - the inequality problem is manageable. Would that politicians were rewarded for doing what really helps rather than for soaring speeches which are calculated to divide.

-----

This week's video demonstrates the contrast between the receptions given by rank and file military to President Bush and President Obama. People risking their lives like to believe that their leaders are in it to win.

January 23, 2014

There is a truism in consumer product marketing that it is easier to find out what people want and make it for them than to make what you want to make and go find customers for it. Similarly in politics, with the Republican field being so wide open there is an opportunity to start with what the customers want rather than what some Party or campaign machine wants to sell. Let's paint some broad swaths.

It is too simplistic to think that voters always want a change after eight years, but the tendency to change parties is striking. Since World War II there have been eight changes of party in presidential elections and only three transitions within the party. One of the three continuity transitions was forced - Johnson succeeded the assasinated Kennedy and was himself reelected once. (Ford succeeded the disgraced incumbent Nixon and lost on his own.) Only Truman and George HW Bush were elected to succeed an incumbent of their own party - the unusually popular Roosevelt and Reagan. Everything being nearly equal, the tie goes to the challenger party.

According to Real Clear Politics' average, President Obama's approvals declined from 65% to 48% in his first year, bounced along until a peak of 53% for the 2012 election, and have since dropped to about 43%, as Rasmussen's "wrong track" has generally hovered around 60%. The reasons for the decline contain the fodder for not only Republican campaign themes, but also for defining the ideal candidate, at least in terms of probability of success. For explanations, lets try (1) a stagnant economy with record low labor participation rate four and a half years years after the Great Recession officially ended; (2) a vapid foreign policy characterized by withdrawal from world leadership; (3) pitiful managerial ability painfully demonstrated by Obamacare, the runaway NSA, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and on and on. (The Left would agree, but point to immigration reform, accountability for Wall Street, and global warming.) Blame comes slowly, but even left-wing publicationsnow frequently agree with the shape of the facts.

So, the Republican candidate biography:

- Executive experience. Probably a governor, possibly a military or business leader. We've had two terms with a junior senator with no experience with hiring and holding staff accountable (Sibelius; IRS; Benghazi), making difficult trade-offs (trillion dollar deficits without actual budgets), and making hard decisions (Afghanistan; Syria; Keystone Pipeline).

- Personal qualities. Intelligence - at least enough to manage subordinates in a complex, unpredictable world. Integrity - if somebody tells you that you can keep your doctor, you'd better be able to keep your doctor. Gravitas - the inate tendency to be taken seriously. (Democrats would want some demographics; for Republicans, not so much.)

- Attitudes. Belief that the United States is exceptional in world history in terms of liberty and opportunity - as well as wealth and power - and a necessary force for good in the world. It is hard to understand how we elected someone who didn't share these convictions, and we cannot affort to make that same mistake again.

- Policies. Clear, consistent positions on the things that Middle America considers to be the most important.

-- Domestically, a focus on getting people back to work rather than victimhood. The winner will be able to articulate how tax policy, regulatory reform, and education can drive American competitiveness and mass prosperity in the 21st Century.

-- Internationally, rebuilding of the alliances that led to a prosperous and secure world for 60 years. The "do do rule" must be restored - what we say we will do, we do do.

With Reince Priebus sending out surveys asking for preferences among 32 potential candidates (oh, and asking for donations), it is helpful to start with the criteria, rather than the state of Chris Cristie's problems. With a bit of subjectivity in fitting potential candidates to the above criteria, the shopping list includes Jeb Bush, Chris Cristie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Perry, and Scott Walker with a potential VP nod to Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez. Any non-governor will have a large hill to climb.

-----

This week's video presents a sobering perspective of America's immigration policies and world poverty.

January 16, 2014

Since the Republicans took over the House in 2010, there has been much talk about gridlock. In fact, the role of Harry Reid has been to prevent House bills from darkening the President's doorstep, with budgeting, prior to the past month, left to "continuing resolutions" and Obama ruling by executive order and regulation rather than trying to find common ground. With this week's braggadocio that he had a pen to sign executive orders and a phone to engage the public, Obama has called attention to his disinterest in even attempting to find areas of cooperation.

While stories on the Internet about executive orders declaring martial law are beyond the pale, there is reason to be concerned about the Constitutional Law professor's distain for the role of Congress:

- In Noel v Canning, the Supreme Court is considering appointments to the National Labor Relations Board made by President Obama using "recess appointments" when the Senate was technically in session - the problem being that the administration could not get confirmation of their union-favoring nominees through the Senate. The result: a likely Supreme Court decision striking down the appointments and leaving over 100 NLRB (largely pro-union) decisions in limbo.

- Robert Wilkins has been appointed to the DC Appeals Court, giving Democrats a 7-4 majority on the court which deals, among other things, with the legality of federal regulations. Appointments to break a 4 to 4 tie had been held up by Senate Republicans on grounds of ideology rather than competence, but became possible in December (at least for the current Senate) when Harry Reid changed the rules to allow approval by a simple majority rather than a 60 vote hurdle. A little more ink has been added to Obama's pen.

At least in numbers, Obama has not been out of line with his recent predecessors, issuing 35 to 40 executive orders per year, most dealing with routine functions of government. Some decisions - such as the refusal to deport underage illegal immigrants, the modification of work requirements for welfare, and the EPAs classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant - probably required legislation, but were not successfully challenged by Republicans. (Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996 - part of the Contract with America - significant rules must be submitted to both houses of Congress and the Government Accounting Office. Only one rule - on ergonomics - has ever been disapproved by both houses.) If Obama follows through on his most recent threat to act unilaterally on immigration and the minimum wage he would probably provoke a House reaction to little effect and lawsuits to be resolved after he is gone.

Equally as problematic as the administration's actions are the decisions not to act when the law would seem to call for it - the constantly changing list of exceptions and delays on Obamacare; the non-enforcement of regulations keeping the IRS out of political enforcement; the lack of personal accountability of anybody for the mortgage-driven financial meltdown of 2008. Eric Holder has certainly be an expert at selective enforcement.

Elections do have consequences. Fortunately, what can be done by executive order can be undone by executive order. A Republican Senate would help, but real change will have to wait until the 2016 elections.

-----

No video this week. Instead this link provides the Wall Street Journal / Heritage Foundation's "financial freedom" ranking of countries based on such factors as fiscal soundness, government size, and property rights. The United States has dropped out of the top 10 for the first time.

January 09, 2014

Over the holidays there were many opportunities - with kids, friends' kids, and even grandkids - to reflect on the differences of political views between generations. Winston Churchill's famous aphorism - "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - sheds some light, but there is more going on here. Three points:

In one gathering where a group of San Francisco 20 to 35 year olds were asked to explain their generation's perspectives, the themes were the technological obsolescence of their elders, universal support for the usual "social justice causes" (gay marriage, equal rights for women, help for the homeless), and their personal need to focus on careers rather than politics. Most disappointing, on the technology question the concept of content seems less important than the tools that are used. Perhaps there is a Marshall McLuhan "the medium is the message" thought here - with two inch by three inch iPhone screens and 144 character tweets it is hard to get into nuance, much less conflicting opinions. One old fogey's opinion.

The broader question of generational differences includes Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1966) versus Generation X (about 1966 to 1985) and Generation Y/ Millenials (about 1985 to 2005), but should really begin with the World War II generation to understand how relatively trivial the later issues and accomplishments are.

- The world as we know it was set between 1941 and 1955 by a very serious generation led by visionaries. The defeat of Hitler and Tojo; the containment of Stalin and Mao. (Visit Auschwitz or read Yevtushenko's poetry about the Russian gulag if you can contemplate alternate histories.) The peaceful reconstruction of Germany and Japan. The establishment of the UN, NATO, SEATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund. The GI Bill, the interstate highway system, the rise of the middle class. I like Ike.

- The Boomers had great social upheaval fueled by opposition to the Viet Nam draft, the birth control pill, and drugs, and including the Kennedy, Kennedy, and King assasinations. Serious stuff; less serious than the 40s, but the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 could have been much worse. By the end of Reagan's time the international game was won and the nuclear Doomsday Clock started moving backwards. The country prospered as the dominant global economic, military, and cultural power.

- The period of Gen X coming of political age has a milestone of 9/11 2001 and its aftermath in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the NSA as well as a general drift to the left, eventually countered by the Tea Party. Big Government has continued to get bigger - Medicare Part B; Obamacare; EPA - with a two term big government Republican president followed by a two term bigger government Democrat.

So, the question is the attitude of the Gen Y / Millenials as they achieve political maturity. Ultimately it is not about tweets and Facebook versus Pinterest or Instagram, it is about the major events shaping the world as they start to pay attention - events that transcend the editorial board at the New York Times and the writers on the Daily Show. As a start they helped elect an African American president - any African American president. Here are a few others:

- The reemergence of the thousand year old Sunni-Shia schism in the Muslim world as the US withdraws from a leadership role in the region. Maybe some Millenials won't care since we will be much less oil dependant, but the globe continues to shrink and the reduced American stature will eventually affect our allies and our commerce. And a Persian - Arab nuclear arms race will demand attention.

- The painfully obvious fact that with Obamacare the federal government has exceeded its ability to effectively manage, whatever one's humanistic inclinations. In time, it won't be about the web site or even the president's lies - it will be about an understanding of the limited capabilities of government.

- In all eras, young people like liberty, and the "out of control" NSA of the last decade has to be a major offense - all the worse because it is an abuse of their technology and adversely affects the global attractiveness of American technology leaders.

- The unemployment scars of the Bush/Obama economy will not be as deep as those of the Great Depression, but the 10 million youths unable to find work will definitely favor policies fueling economic growth. And they will eventually feel the burden of the $17 trillion debt that we are bequeathing them.

- Perhaps most pervasive is the cynicism spawned by an incompetent president who lied to get his signature legislation passed, is bathed in cronyism, and is not interested in actually governing.

It is so clear that the next generation should be conservatives. We just need to figure out how to explain it to them. Now, how does that hashtag thing work?

-----

This week's video is Chris Cristie's response to his "Bridgegate" scandal. While ugly, his press conference offers a sharp contrast to President Obama's response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA spying scandal, and numberous other "the president didn't know" incidents.

December 26, 2013

In the broad arc of American history the Obamacare episode will be known not so much for its incompetence and deceipt or its near destruction of the world's best health care system as for the most broadly understood example of a decline in constitutional protections against an imperial presidency. Consider:

There's lots to dislike about Obamacare - and most Americans do dislike it; the most recent CNN poll shows 35% approval and 62% disapproval. Let's think of that in three parts.

1. On the policy. The basic premise that there should not be millions of uninsured in the richest nation on earth has resonance. Most, except the far Left, would agree that it is good for the major elements of the delivery system - doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and insurers - to remain in the private sector. So far, so good. From there extends a long line of policy decisions which doomed the Obama/Pelosi solution - requiring that all Americans be insured, whether they wanted to be or not; requiring employers to provide policies which they found financially burdensome or ethically offensive; disallowing low cost policies with minimal coverage favored by millions; requiring inclusion of "social agenda" items such as morning after pills; costly inclusions like the federally subsidized expansion of Medicaid; a "death panel" to determine what life saving procedures would be compensated. Once the government broke the system, they owned it.

2. On the implementation. From the corrupt sausage making in Congress to the horrendous web site rollout the highly visible performance could not be worse. Nancy Pelosi's "we need to pass it to find out what's in it" and Harry Reid's "Cornhusker Kickbacks" were instrumental in the rise of the Tea Party - yes that was only four years ago. The web site fiasco and the president's "lie of the year" about keeping doctors and insurance policies (e.g. no impact on the middle class) have driven the collapse of approval for Obamacare and Obama since mid-summer.

3. On the constitutional implications. While not the real cause of public opposition, this is where the greatest damage to the Republic has been done. Judge Roberts' tortured decision that the individual mandate was a tax, and therefore constitutional, fundamentally changes the relationship between the citizens and the government. Most would disagree with the Supreme Court, but for now that is the law of the land. (There is still a glimmer of hope that the Act will be overturned because, as a tax, it should have originated in the House, but that is a faint glimmer.)

Equally troubling, and as yet legally untested, are the steps taken by the administration to change the law without Congressional approval - ironically, in several cases after threatening to veto similar House actions.

a. Administrative convenience.

- The decision to move the deadline for sign-up from December 16 to December 23, then December 24, then beyond and the request that insurers backdate policies for a week or two for those who sign up after January 1 reflect panic that there would be more cancellations than new sign ups. Bad business; bad form; but probably within reasonable administrative discretion.

- In September the Office of Personnel Management, at the direction of the White House and with the support of Congressional leaders, without legislation allowed subsidies to Congressional staffers to cover their increased Obamacare costs.

c. Fundamental alterations by fiat.

- The July decision to delay the large employer mandate until 2015 runs clearly into specific language in the Affordable Care Act, and was triggered by the realization that it would most likely cause a large move away from employer-sponsored plans. If the cancellation of 5 million individual plans has caused a firestorm, the large employer version of policy cancellations will be a multiple if it is implemented as planned in 2015.

- The law included 14 "hardship" exemptions from the mandate (for example, homeless; domestic violence victim; or utilities shut off), but in a deliciously ironic move Obama added a 15th - losing insurance due to Obamacare. He also allowed those with cancelled policies to obtain one of his favorite political targets, pariah plans which offer limited "catastrophic" coverage for low premiums.

-----

There is other major damage being done to our constiturional republic - use of the IRS to suppress political opposition; rampant domestic and international abuse by the National Security Agency; deliberate non-enforcement of immigration laws against youth - but Obamacare will be the highlight. Corrupt from beginning to end; acutely known and understood by the massees; a painful demonstration of Nobel Prize winner Friederich Hayek's claim in The Road to Serfdom that large central governments cannot effectively manage complex aspects of society.

We optimists hope that this will be an inflection point; that the furor over Obamacare will be more than an irritated reaction to Obama's abuse of the Middle Class; that the Tea Party's enthusisam for small government, individual liberty, and constitutional protections will guide the next generation. A thought for the new year.

December 19, 2013

Polls are confusing when they are intended to form opinion rather than to reflect it. Take the favorability ratings of Congress - 9% according to Gallup, the lowest since polling began in 1974. Outlets like CBS , The Hill, and the Huffington Post like to use this number to make President Obama's 40% approval ratings look good, and to attach blame to the Republican House and its Tea Party members. The number is right, but the interpretation is way off base.

First, a small parsing of the data:

- Congress includes Harry Reid's Senate as well as John Boehner's House. Polls don't usually distinguish.

- Approval as of November was 9% among Republicans, 8% among Independents and 10% among Democrats. Republicans and Independents had actually gone down since Republicans caved on the October shutdown. While the media celebrates compromise, a lot of Republicans and Independents clearly favor taking a hard line on spending.

Second, a few procedural reminders:

- When Republicans took over the House in 2010 they banned earmarks and, despite some quarreling, they retained that provision in the current House. Whatever else the merits may be, this has reduced the ability of leadership to reward members for loyal behavior, and placed greater emphasis on satisfying their constituents.

- Republicans also have six year term limits for committee chairs - with a few notable waivers such as Paul Ryan on the Budget Committee. While the increased turnover eliminates independent feifdoms, it also has the effect of promoting chairs that reflect the views of the Speaker. More influence within the leadership offsets less with the members.

- Since the 90s, Republicans have generally followed the Hastert Rule, no Republican Speaker should bring a bill to the floor which does not have the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. Democrat votes may still be needed if the majority of the caucus does not make up a majority of the House, but it does prevent a Democratic Bill which would pass with a few Republican votes. This is critical to maintain relevance for a party which does not hold the Senate or the Presidency. (Boehner's one major exception was the tax act of 2012 which kept most of the "Bush tax cuts", but did raise upper income rates over the opposition of most Republicans.)

- A combination of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (which cut projected 10 year spending by $1.2 trillion and averted a default and a shutdown) and sequestration in March of 2013 (which cut an additional $1.2 trillion in 10 year spending) have been contentious and - in the latter case - ham-handed, but they, the tax increases of 2012, and a gradually improving economy have reduced the deficit from $1.4 trillion in FY 2009 to $680 billion in FY 2013 - about 4.1% of GDP. The recent Ryan-Murray two year budget deal backs off a bit, but doesn't change the direction.

- Some items which were originally passed with sunset provisions have been allowed to lapse: the reduction in Social Security taxes in 2013, and the extension of unemployment compensation in 2014.

And some conjecture on what is to come:

- The two year budget deal did not solve the debt ceiling which will again be breached in about March. Republicans will have little leverage here, but might just extend it to the Fall to ensure that the subject of financial responsibility which favors Republicans is in the public mind when we elect the next Senate.

- Paul Ryan will apparently defer any run for President to bring his conservative intellect to the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee which would have lead responsibility on tax reform, Medicare, and Social Security. At 43 he can wait.

- And in the most important poll of Congressional approval - the one held every other November - sages such as Charile Cook and Stu Rothenberg are talking of an historic Democratic collapse and "all but erasing any chances that the party can win back the House next year" following the Obamacare fiasco.

Facing a Democrat Senate and a liberal Democrat president John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and their associates haven't done bad at all - at least on the financial stuff.

-----

This week's video discusses Vladimir Putin's latest one-upping of Obama - a $15 billion loan and natural gas deal to keep Ukraine in the Russian orbit instead of moving toward the European Union. Earlier this year he gave NSA traitor Edward Snowden sanctuary in Russia and brokered a deal in Syria to keep the US out and Assad in power. Maybe Barack will do better in 2014.

October 03, 2013

"It is discouraging how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit." Noel Coward

"I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don't trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it." Charles Dickens

I have mused frequently over the years about the importance of honesty. In the military - where the Academies have strict honor codes - it is critical that the soldier be able to trust his platoon mates or his wingman. In business, acts of known dishonesty drive away partners and valued repeat customers. In politics the standard of conduct is often lower with a general recognition that politicians usually emphasize what people want to hear and avoid the unpleasant. The last few years have brought a new low with some politicians deliberately emphasizing things that they know to be untrue.

Exhibit One (Nancy Pelosi): After her defeat as Speaker of the House in 2010, Nancy Pelosi would frequently tell groups how important financial prudence in government is - her speakership was characterized by "Pay-Go", the premise that any new spending proposal has to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget. The reality - which she knew, the audience knew, and she knew that the audience knew - was that in her four years as speaker the accumulated federal deficit increased by $5,000,000,000, or 58%. What was striking is that she didn't avoid the unpleasant topic or characterize it as necessary in the times; she deliberately, directly brought it up and took pride in denying it.

Exhibits Two to Four (Barack Obama):

- In 2008 Candidate Obama pledged:"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Just within Obamacare, millions will pay the "individual mandate surtax"; Flexible Spending Accounts will be taxed $13 billion; the threshold for deducting medical expenses has been increased, impacting millions of middle class taxpayers; there is a 40% surtax on "cadillac" healthcare plans common in union agreements; non-prescription drugs have been removed from Health Savings Accounts; the 2.3% tax on medical devices will flow through to payers. It is not as if Obama wanted these taxes, it is just that he wanted the Congressional Budget Office's evaluation of the ACA to come in below a set amount and he needed to violate his pledge to get there.

- In 2008 candidate Obama also pledged: “In an Obama administration, we'll lower premiums by up to $2500 for a typical family per year... We'll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States." Forbes predicts that the reality will be an increase of about $7500 - data currently is all over the lot with millios of big losers and some low income gainers. There will be better estimates once the exchanges get operating, but his high profile commitment was obviously quantum wrong.

- In 2009, in selling Obamacare, Obama pledged "First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan -- you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you." As it turns out there are a few exceptions: the millions who are losing employer coverage because they are losing their jobs or being cut to part time employment; the millions who work for companies like UPS, Walgreens, or IBM who are dropping or modifying coverage and shifting to employee-paid concepts; the millions whose doctors are dropping Medicare patients; the millions whose insurance companies are choosing not to participate in exchanges.

Back to musing: Americans want and need a president that they can trust. Maybe the sophisticates can say "it was just hyperbole; nobody should have taken it seriously". Maybe we shouldn't have taken his dire predictions about the calamity of the 2012 budget sequester seriously. Maybe a lack of credibility didn't influence his fumbling on Syria's chemical weapons and won't affect negotiations with Iran. Maybe.

The problem with developing a reputation for making exagerated claims and empty threats is that your adversaries will miscalculate when you really do mean what you say. In foreign policy or domestic politics that is not good for the country. In an irony worthy of Sartre or Camus, the president may benefit politically, but that is a musing for another day.

-----

This week's video is offered in anticipation of the upcoming American League Championship Series between the Boston Red Sox and the Oakland A's - with apologies to readers in Tampa Bay and Detroit.

September 26, 2013

The debate du jour within the Republican Party is not about philosophy or objectives, it is about the best strategy for defunding Obamacare. One group thinks it must be done now, before it gets ingrained in our national welfare state; the other thinks it more realistic to marshall the political resources to roll it back in 2014 or 2016. Neither adequately addresses what comes next. Some observations:

- A majority of the public believe that the new law will make the healthcare system worse, but that number is volatile. Liberals complain about a few ads encouraging people not to sign up, but future months will see a billion dollar advertisement campaign from the administration, insurance companies and other advocates.

- We are at the peak moment of dysfunction. Thirty six states have decided to let the feds run their exchanges. Several large insurance companies have decided not to participate. Polling shows that most young people will choose not to buy insurance despite the mandate. Computer glitches abound. Clerks managing subsidies will have access to previously private health records and income tax returns - and for 2014 will accept applicants claims of income without any verification. Much of this will be worked out in a year or two, if not in months.

- Even if Republicans hold the House and win the Senate in 2014, President Obama will veto any rollback. A trifecta in 2016 is far from inevitable. The surest approach is to attach a defund mandate to a bill that the Senate and the President must pass and sign - a continuing budget resolution or a debt limit increase.

- Election losses following the 1995 government shutdown are a myth - Newt Gingrich's Republicans held the House and gained Senate seats in 1996. It is the president who refuses to negotiate on the budget, the debt limit, or Obamacare. It is the president who grossly misrepresented the impact of Obamacare on the middle class in terms of taxes, change of doctors, and change of insurance carriers.

- Don't worry about the law succeeding. Tens of billions in new taxes will hit the public as they prepare 2013 and 2014 tax returns. Unions and the public understand that the employer mandates are destroying the 40 hour work week and full time jobs in the service sector. Doctors are dropping Medicare while Obamacare is trying to add 30 million patients. Insurance companies will be offering inferior provider networks at mostly higher rates, higher deductibles and higher co-pays. Corporations are requiring hundreds of thousands of employees to purchase their own insurance. The individual mandate and required coverage for contraception and morning after pills remain strongly unpopular.

- Rarely does a political party face a president whose "signature accomplishment" is so unpopular and so difficult to implement. There is a golden opportunity to force Democrats in red states to take votes that will be vastly unpopular - particularly Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina who face reelection in 2014. Ted Cruz has helped to shine the spotlight. A pickup of 5 is needed for control.

Most analysts, and even firebrands such as Rand Paul, believe that the Republicans will eventually give in rather than risk giving up a winning political hand for 2014.

But this is only the prelude. Beyond "defunding Obamacare", the Republicans need a plan of their own. Elements could include tort reform, selling insurance across state lines, perhaps a base government-funded catastrophic insurance, perhaps enhanced Health Savings Accounts, something to enhance access for people with preexisting conditions, perhaps the popular requirement that kids could remain dependents until age 26. The absence of a Republican alternative creates two problems:

1. In the ongoing debate it is hard to beat something with nothing.

2. More importantly, as Obamacare becomes increasingly unpopular the Democrats have a Plan B - "single payer", perhaps in the form of Medicare for everybody, with current support from folks such as Harry Reid,unions, and other advocates for a government run national healthcare system.

In 2016 a Democratic candidate promising to simplify the system and get rid of insurance companies will have an attractive message. Republicans had best get their plan put forth while the Democrats are still concentrating on the Obamacare monstrosity.

-----

This week's video shows President Bush at Yankee Stadium for the World Series in New York after 9/11. Exceptional.

And for those who have 10 minutes to better understand Ted Cruz, here is Cruz' father discussing Cuba and his son's upbringing.

September 19, 2013

This is speculation. Generally, one of the benefits of writing at RightinSanFrancisco.com is the ability to embed authoritative links - to polls, to news articles, to expert analysis. This week there are no links, just speculation.

The premise: President Obama understood that he'd been badly thrashed by Vladimir Putin and he reached out to the one resource who could match the Russian's political cunning and ruthlessness - the former House Speaker who had delivered Obamacare for him in 2009. They've been out of touch for a few years; now they need each other.

Her advice:

1. Foreign policy is different from domestic politics. Flowery speeches and a pliant media don't matter and your inner circle looks like a bunch of amateurs. Stay with what you are good at.

2. The minority leader cannot deliver the House Democrats for a strike on Syria; even core Bay Area supporters like Anna Eshoo and George Miller are publicly against their president. With isolationist Republicans and those who just want Obama to be taken down there is no way to get a House majority to support the proposed strike - and there won't be a next time. Mutter something about presidential perogatives, but don't push it - a future president will be a Republican and your base doesn't want her to be bombing somewhere without their permission.

3. A defeat in the House would be a disaster. Pushing 30 or 40 Democrats to support their president when a strong majority of the public opposed his Syria policy would invite a repeat of 2010 when Democrats lost 63 seats and the Speakership. Grab Putin's lifeboat, whatever it costs.

4. The American public has a short attention span. They've largely forgotten about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, and the ongoing NSA revelations. Don't worry about Fox and Darrell Issa. See what the New York Times is writing about - but don't read that ingrate Maureen Dowd's columns. She didn't get the memo.

5. Spin a yarn that the public will want to buy. Tell them that you really came up with this idea for Assad to give up his chemical weapons in a 20 minute conversation with Putin at the G20 meeting, that it was your insistence on a military strike that got the Russians and Assad to the table, that anything you agree to must be complete and verifyable, that you've made the world safer from future use of chemical weapons, that Iran recognized your steely resolve. People will want to believe that their president is up to the task, and your faithful need something to hang on to.

6. Let Kerry take it from here. He loves the spotlight, just don't let him commit to anything that will cause a problem in the next six months - or maybe until after November 2014. Get an inventory; let the UN discuss it; agree that the weapons will be dealt with sometime next year. Just no milestones.

7. Oh, and you've got to give something to your liberal base that is feeling abandoned. Maybe give the Federal Reserve Chairman gig to Janet Yellen instead of that misogynistic Clinton lackey Larry Summers. And lets really go for it: appoint Barbara Lee, the most liberal anti-war member of the House as your representative to the UN General Assembly. She and UN Ambassador Samantha Powers, now that would send a message to the world.

Bullet dodged. On to the budget, the debt limit, and Obamacare. As Hillary would say, "What difference does it really make?"

-----

To provide a bit of balance, this week's video shows the state of the Obama presidency on late night television.

September 12, 2013

Like "nature or nurture" in child rearing, historians can argue about the importance of the individual in the rise and fall of nations - the Mongols without Genghis Khan; the ancient Persians without Cyrus; the Romans without Julius Ceasar; Germany without Hitler; England without Winston Churchill. Vladimir Putin has benefited from vast energy resources, a weak Europe, and a weaker Barack Obama, but he has certainly brought Mother Russia back from the chaos and international irrelevance bequeathed to him by Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.

Understanding the new Syrian setting requires understanding what Putin wants.

1. Russia will be able to demonstrate to its neighbors and the Middle East that it shares the world stage with the United States - "its equal in power and its superior in cunning and diplomacy" as George Friedman of Stratfor describes the positioning. Coupled with the NSA/Edward Snowden fiasco, Putin is on a roll and the countries that once made up the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies are recalibrating their foreign policies.

2. Russia has its own problem with Islamist extremists, having fought two brutal wars in Chechnya in the 90s and endured subsequent terrorist attacks at a school in in Beslan and various sites in Moscow as well as lingering unrest in Dagestan, South Ossetia, and parts of Georgia. The last thing that Putin, who himelf was directly involved in the the Caucasus in his KGB days, wants is for Islamist radicals in the Caucasus to gain access to chemical weapons from Syria.

3. Centuries of Russian geopolitics have involved a reach for warm water ports, with the Black Sea Fleet bottled up at the Dardanelles by Turkey. The Russian navy enjoys a small base at Tartus, Syria where they can perform replenishment and minor repair of ships in the Mediterranean. The alliance has been strong since the 70s, even as Russia withdrew from most foreign facilities with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What we want is much less clear. In his September 10 speech, President Obama stressed the need to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons, but stressed that the strike would be what John Kerry called "unbelievably small", and would not involve "boots on the ground", open ended commitments, or extended air and missile efforts like those in Kosovo or Libya. He also left out specific American objectives and strategies for Syria, or a timeline for implementing Putin's plan or taking any action.

Instead, the White House grabbed the accidental opportunity to back away from doing anything, claiming that Putin had put the proposal forward and now "owns it". So now Kerry is off to Geneva to work out the details: will a UN resolution threaten force if Assad does not comply? (Russia says "no"); what is the timeline for gaining control and destroying Assad's weapons?; how will ongoing compliance be verified? In the meantime, Russia is continuing its extensive supply of weapons to the Assad regime, aid to the rebels remains largely on hold, and the weight of force on the battlefield remains increasingly in Assad's favor.

If we had a Putin - or a Kissinger or a Reagan - there might be a deal which would result in a verifiable elimination of Assad's chemical weapons, a long term plan to support the moderate rebels to the point where they supplant the radical Islamists, and a guarantee to Putin that he could keep his naval base in a neutral Syria. Unfortunately we have a second Jimmy Carter, and the world will get to watch the Russians prop Assad up while the Obama administration continues its global march to the rear.

For those seeking a ray of optimism, if Russia could recover from the damage done by Gorbochev and Yeltsin, the United States - with our vastly greater economy and military might - can eventually recover from the damage being done by Barack Obama.

-----

This week's video is a smaller 9/11 version of the annual Memorial Day Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally in Washington D.C. For some reason, the leaders could not get a permit while the American Muslim Political Action Committee did get one from the National Park Service for their 9/11 "Million Muslim March" which drew a few dozen participants to the Mall. (For younger generations, "Rolling Thunder" was the name for the air campaign over North Vietnam - a reflection of the politics of the Harley crowd.)

August 08, 2013

The next few months - with the October 1 start of the FY14 budget and the projected $17 trillion debt limit breach by early November - will look like Crazy Season in Washington. With both sides in full political posture mode, two obvious paramount factors risk being obscured.

1. Obamacare will not be repealed.

The House has tried this 40 times; a dozen conservative Senators have stated their opinion; Republicans lacking in zeal are likely to face primary opponents. To some extent this is seen as the last hurrah with exchanges going into effect on January 1, but the election of Mitt Romney was the last real hope for preventing the carnage. It wouldn't matter if the Republicans shut down the government, the Senate will not pass a repeal and President Obama would certainly veto any major changes.

Contrary to the "inevitable march of socialist progress" view, that need not be the end of the story. A plurality of voters oppose Obamacare today. Over the next six months there will be increased insurance rates, chaotic state and federal run exchanges, chaotic data hubs to verify eligibility for subsidies, more patients with fewer doctors, more layoffs of 40 hour workers, refusal of young workers to buy insurance, and the imposition of tax penalties for high end employer-sponsored plans. Even the unions and congressional staffers are seeing the light.

But you can't beat something with nothing. Republican success requires winning the Senate and presidency, then instituting Plan B. In fact, campaigning on Plan B should be wildly popular if it keeps near universal coverage with minimum base level benefits, encouragement of individuals and companies to buy supplement plans as they choose, no prohibition on pre-existing conditions, an increase in nurse practitioners, ability to buy insurance across state lines, no mandated birth control and morning after pills, and a few other similar provisions.

2. Obama's Democrats have locked in the inflated spending levels from 2009-2010 when they controlled the House as well as the Senate and the Presidency.

Obama and Paul Krugman will continue to obscure the central fact that prior to 2008 federal government spending was under 20% of Gross Domestic Product; throughout the Obama presidency it has remained in the 23 - 24% level. The 2011 Sequester simply held the line. Paul Ryan's 2014 proposal would put us on a path toward a balanced budget in a decade and move back toward traditioinal federal spending levels; President Obama's would increase spending, taxes, and deficits.

In his latest round of speeches, Obama has bragged about reducing the deficit due to his prudent management, and adding millions of jobs. The reality is that the reduction to a deficit of $750 billion in 2013 is the result of hundreds of billions in tax increases and the sequestration which he proposed, then fought tooth and nail. His latest laundry list of new spending proposals - universal pre-school; more "infrastructure"; more "clean energy" subsidies and R&D - will not get past the House, but the status quo does not represent progress and deserves a fight.

As backdrop, Obama has moved on from blaming Bush for his financial failures to blaming the Republican House. The ongoing real 15% unemployment, the decline in wages, the anemic 1-2% GDP growth, the explosion of food stamps, the poverty of retirees living on bond income - none of it the result of his war on carbon-based energy, his antipathy toward small business ("you didn't build it"), his tax increases, his National Labor Relations Board decisions, his financial regulations, or any of his other aspect of his Left-wing agenda.

Fortunately the American voters get it, continuing to trust Republicans more on the economy, jobs, and taxes. John Boehner gets it. Reince Priebus gets it. Hopefully, they will be able to keep Republican focus on 2014 and 2016 when there is a potential to truly eliminate Obamacare, move toward a balanced budget, and reverse the spate of executive orders from the increasingly imperial president. That outcome is the Republicans' to lose.

-----

This week's video is the view of conservative icon Charles Krauthammer on the tactics for defeating Obamacare.

July 25, 2013

In discussing political corruption there is some risk of sounding like an Old Testament soothsayer, decrying society's loss of a moral compass as in the story of Lot's wife or Moses' destruction of the golden idol. As Obamacare rolls out there will be massive systemic problems, but the greatest damage is the invitation to corruption inherent in the way that the exchanges are being organized.

In the past we've discussed the personal financial gains of the husbands of San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein. That is offensive, but analogous to LBJ and many others.

We and the Occupy Movement have discussed the corruption of Wall Street with nobody being held personally responsible for the gross abuses that led to the 2008 near-collapse, or even Jon Corzine not being held accountable for stealing over $1 billion from his clients. That is offensive, but a logical outgrowth of campaign finance requirements and an overmatched administration.

We've discussed the abuses of the Stimulus Plan and its rush to shower hundreds of millions of dollars on Obama donors with interests in solar industry - Soylndra and its brethren. That is offensive, but the result of ideologues and scientists without a clue about business or ethics running the Energy Department.

We haven't much discussed the egregious payout of billions for alleged USDA discrimination against minority farmers - mostly African American, but expanded for political reasons to include American Indian, Hispanic, and women farmers - which has exploded in the past four years. This NY Times article describes what the taxpayers got when the administration, perhaps illegally, tapped a Justice Department fund for litigated payments to offer alleged injured parties up to $50,000 each with "no documentation needed": judges and department professionals overruled by the Obama administration; open extortion by the Hispanic caucus prior to the 2010 election; an industry of claims solicitors; more claimants than farmers in many areas; "urban farmers"; extended deadlines; and a bill that will probably exceed $4 billion. That is offensive and demonstrates the corruption of the administration, but it does not serve to corrupt the average American citizen.

Obamacare exchanges, that's different. Lost in the discussion of the delayed requirement for large employers (above 50 employees) to provide coverage, the refusal of most states to establish exchanges where small businesses and individuals can purchase coverage, the Republican legislation to delay the individual mandate, and the creation of loosely controlled "data hubs" containing extensive medical and financial information on all citizens, is the fact that subsidies are to be given to low income individuals with no documentation required.By comparison, income taxes are subject to audit, Social Security payments are based on reported income taxes, and mushrooming foodstamp payments require proof of income, assets, and expenses. Not so with Obama's signature legacy.

Some of the sadness about what Barack Obama is doing to America comes from his "America in retreat" foreign policy, some comes from the declining economic standing of the middle class, some comes from the debt being piled on our grandchildren. Add to the list a level of political corruption not seen in our lifetimes.

-----

For the first time, this week's video is one of Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points", a much needed response to President Obama's Treyvon Martin speech. Would that it had come from a Black leader.

July 18, 2013

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have a lot in common: both are long term products of the Senate's fight against meritocracy; neither has a lock on the voters of their home state; both are happy to let subordinates (Chuck Schumer; Marco Rubio/John McCain) be the face of decision making; both usually seem to be asleep, although Harry may not be. In this week's stand-off all that McConnell had to do was nothing and he couldn't manage that.

Since the uber-corrupt passage of Obamacare in 2009 not much has happened in the Senate. It has been Reid's job to make sure that nothing that comes out of the House makes it to Obama's desk - 37 bills to defund Obamacare; no budgets; nothing from Darrell Issa's busy Oversight committee. On the other hand, it has been McConnell's job to slow down Obama's domestic agenda by refusing to confirm agency heads (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Labor; EPA; Export-Import Bank) and two members of the National Labor Relations Board. Appointment of federal judges has been about normal. For his part, Obama has gone forward with temporary appointments - some arguably illegal - while he has ignored Congress by unilaterally implementing part of the Dream Act, coal industry regulation, and the delay of parts of Obamacare. The rule of law it ain't.

Within the past two months Reid unexpectedly lost badly on gun control and won with Marco Rubio's help on immigration (which will go nowhere anyway). Now, by threatening to change the Senate rules to require a simple majority for approval of appointments - a proposition which most voters see as reasonable - Reid has done a bit to make Obama's last three and a half years a bit more effective without giving up anything.

(As a side note, who knows what John McCain was thinking in brokering this deal. Perhaps he is looking for some karma at the White House where National Security Advisor Rice and UN Ambassador Power likely lean in his direction on intervention in Syria. Maybe he is just enjoying his "maverick" status because he can.)

Of course, there are some sub-plots going on with posturing for the 2014 elections.

- The Senate is now 54 Democrats (including 2 nominal Independents) and 46 Republicans. A net gain of five is needed to take control with 20 Democrat and 15 Republican seats up for election.

- The two premier Senate pollsters, Stu Rothenberg (leans Republican) and Charlie Cook (leans Democrat), both see a likely range of plus 3 to plus 6 for the Republicans in an off-year election where turnout generally favors them. Nate Silver, who was uncannily prescient in 2012, sees a net Republican gain of four to five. And that's before ObamaCare's implosion.

-- The Republicans have a sure loss in New Jersey - where governor Christie, again placing self over party, passed on appointing somebody who might hold the seat - and three seats with some risk (Mitch McConnell of Kentucky who is a major target; Susan Collins in Maine; and Saxby Chambliss' open seat in Georgia). Project minus 1.

-- The Democrats have a sure loss in South Dakota where Tim Johnson is retiring, at least four seats which are toss-ups at best (Mark Pryor of Arkansas; Mary Landrieu of Louisiana; and the seats of retiring Max Baucus in Montana amd Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia), and five more where the Republicans also have a real chance (Mark Begich of Alaska; Kay Hagan in North Carolina; Al Franken in Minnesota; Carl Levin of Michigan; and the seat of retiring Tom Harkin of Iowa). Project plus 4 to plus 7.

- The Republicans need to avoid the type of divisive primaries and tone deaf candidates that they had in 2010 (Sharon Angle in Nevada; Christine O'Donnell in Delaware) and 2012 (Todd Aiken in Missouri; Richard Mourdock in Indiana). Jerry Moran, Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, appears to have an easier job than his predecessor, John Cornyn, who was faced with conservatives led by Jim DeMint who were willing to risk safe seats to move to the right. (Liz Cheney's insurrection against Mike Enzi in Wyoming is unlikely to open the door to a Democrat.)

The odds are that in January 2015 Harry and Mitch will still be arguing about the merits of a 60 vote requirement, although, in true debate team fashion, there is a good chance that they will swap their righteously outraged positions again.

-----

This week's video is Harry Reid's 2005 speech about the filibuster, revving up for 2015.

July 11, 2013

Most of what you hear about the fate of immigration reform in the House misses the point. Passage in 2013 will not be determined by the merits of secure borders, Obamacare for illegals, or even the economic cost or benefit. It is not even about the 73 % of Latinos who voted for Obama in 2012. The questions are more personal than that:

1. "In my district in 2014 do I have to worry more about my Democratic opponent getting above, say, 75% of the Latino vote or the threat of a primary challenger from the Right?" Stu Rothenberg's analysis would say that only a few of the 234 House Republicans are in any danger and Latinos constitute at least a fifth of the voters in only 37 Republican districts. No urgency there.

2. "Over the course of my career in the House how much would I be hurt by my portion of millions of new voters who, being less assimilated, would be even more likely to vote against me?" The corrolary - "If we give them green cards to mute most of the complaints, how long would the 'path to citizenship' (e.g. voting) need to be to get beyond my time horizon?" The offer in the Senate bill was 13 years.

In sum: there is no need now; we need to put off voting for at least a decade; why give Obama and Chuck Shumer/Harry Reid a victory; and what's in it for me anyway?

That's the 2013-14 equation when the House Republicans can write off the Blue states and the heavily Democratic minority-populated cities, but what works for the House doesn't work for the presidency in 2016 and could decide a Senate seat or two.

This leaves a fairly clear challenge for John Boehner (who has previously demonstrated a broader view in budget negotiations), with a fairly obvious set of steps to take:

1. To remain Speaker don't bring forward legislation which will threaten the re-election of Republican members. There is principle ... then there is survival. He could cross his members on a budget "Grand Bargain" in 2011 and retain his speakership, but something that would put his members personally at risk is a different matter. Thus, the Hastert Rule - no bill will be brought to a vote which is not supported by a majority of Republican members (118 today).

2. Look to the 2014 House elections. Things look good; don't let immigration screw it up. Nothing that looks like amnesty; nothing that doesn't first secure the borders; nothing that would bring primary challenges. Passing a bill acceptable to House Republicans would be a good - but not necessary - idea.

3. Jump ahead mentally to a Conference Committee to resolve differences between the Senate Bill and anything that comes from the House. Appoint reliable stalwarts who would not agree to anything that would not pass the House with the 118 Republican votes. Remember simple basics - real border enforcement; no jumping the line; no voting for a decade.

4. Take your time. House district lines are set until the 2020 census. No need to let Obama or Shumer get any credit. Realize that Obama will only enforce the parts that he likes - witness his unilateral delay of parts of Obamacare despite language in the bill specifying a begin date of January 1, 2014. Use the Democratic trick - pass it in time to get the subject off of the table for the 2016 presidential election, to be implemented after Obama is gone.

-----

With the number of Americans receiving food assistance now passing the number of full time private sector workers, this week's video is a flashback to a Newt Gingrich/Nancy Pelosi discussion of 2010.

July 04, 2013

It is hard to know which of four "continuing to unravel" subjects has been the most mismanaged, creating the most long term detriment to the United States:

1. The Middle East - Benghazi non-engagement (demonstrating the ability to attack Americans with impunity); meaningless ultimatums on Syria; Egyptian turmoil. We will never know what could have been done with the Arab Spring opportunity, but we do know the result of "leading from behind" for our friends and for our influence.

2. Obamacare - admission that mandated employer insurance is unworkable (at least until after the next election); costs for the healthy young more than doubling; large insurers refusing to participate in exchanges. Restructuring one sixth of our economy is way beyond the ability of Kathleen Sibelius - or any central bureaucracy.

3. The IRS - use of the tax collectors to intimidate political opponents. The first step toward recovery is admitting the problem, a step which the administration refuses to take despite the testimony of the Inspector General, knocking down the Left's claim that "progressive" groups were also targeted.

4. The NSA - tracking virtually all domestic telephone messages; monitoring extensive international e-mail traffic running through American servers; bugging of our allies at home and abroad; lying to Congress about surveillance. Much more is needed than demeaning Snowden as "just a 29-year old hacker".

Maybe a hostile Middle East doesn't matter too much to us. Obamacare promises to become increasingly unpopular, causing a few million extra unemployed and a few trillion dollars more of debt until the Republicans are strong enough to reform the reform. The IRS scandal is the most direct attack on our freedom; hopefully Darrell Issa will stay focused on the core issue.

My vote for the most lasting damage goes to the NSA fiasco, demonstrating the potential of the 21st Century police state, the lack of effective judicial / Congressional oversight, and the damage of an administration incapable and unwilling to have an honest discussion of the trade-offs with Americans and our foreign allies. Two aspects yet to develop:

- The first month's reaction to the Snowden disclosures had a tone of "Americans shouldn't worry; the really intrusive stuff is restricted to the foreigners." That should perhaps be expected from an administration which plays everything for domestic political gain, but - like with the extensive use of drones in Pakistan - Obama has demonstrated an insensitive arrogance guaranteed to turn foreign friends away and his Secretary of State would pass off bugging of 38 allied missions as "not unusual".

- The commercial implications are little mentioned. We own the internet, from the management of domain names, to the home of social media, to the production and operation of servers. Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo were initially vocal that they only provided information to NSA when required and the NSA's PRISM program was for foreign communications. One can bet that the next generation of the global internet will not be America-centric, regardless of where the technical innovation comes from.

Edward Klein's "The Amateur" nailed it. We are paying a huge price for putting a Chicago community organizer in charge of the world's greatest economic, military, and technological power. Some on the Right believe that Obama's damage is deliberate; a more charitable interpretation is insular incompetence.

-----

This week's video, courtesy of an alert California reader, gets us back to a bit of much-needed levity.

June 27, 2013

Many of my Democrat friends are bemoaning the lack of any personal relationship between the President and Congressional leaders - not only John Boehner (who he stiffed on the Grand Bargain in 2011) and Mitch McConnell (who targeted his defeat after the Obamacare trampling in 2009), but also Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other leaders of his party. The embarrassing inability to do anything on gun control has highlighted the lack, after five years in office, of any personal allies leaving the President to rely totally on speeches and regulation.

This doesn't just happen. Washington is full of people who would like to be the friend of the President, any President. It doesn't take the warmth of a Clinton, a Reagan, or a George W Bush. For an insight into Obama's missing "interpersonal gene", lets look at the recent dismissal of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

On the June 18 Charlie Rose interview Obama announced that Bernanke had done a good job, but "he's already stayed a lot longer than he wanted or he was supposed to." Nobody knows what Bernanke's wishes were beyond the end of his second term on December 31, what conversations there had been, or how best to announce a transition without roiling the markets, but good graces would seem to have called for Bernanke to make the announcement himself, or at least to have been on the stage with his boss. Ben is not one to raise a fuss, but it can be assumed that the management of the Fed for the next six months will have a stronger component of looking to Ben's legacy than the president's.

A few recent international examples are also instructive:

- When the new Chinese president, Xi Jinping visited for a "getting to know you" visit with Obama in California, he brought his wife, an accomplished singer and popular good will ambassador. Michelle took a pass, staying in Washington to attend one of their daughter's school events and Obama used the occasion to publicly lecture the Chinese on their stealing of American technical secrets in the middle of our own NSA spying disclosures.

- In a misread of Russian politics Obama played for three years to Alexander Medvedev, Putin's temporary stand-in as president, dissing the real power. It is hard to imagine being more accomodating to Russia on policy - cancelling missile defenses in central Europe, diminishing our presence on the southern flank in Afghanistan, and offering to drastically reduce our nuclear forces. The result? - a brusque dismissal of nuclear talks and safe transit for NSA spy Snowden without a phone call.

- Relations with Canada have been hurt not only by the incessant delay of the XL Pipeline, but also Obama's on-mic characterization of Prime Minister Harper as "all pudge and hair."

This week's video is of another IRS manager invoking the 5th Amendment before Darrell Issa's investigating committee - this time relating to $500 million of fraudulent acquisition of IT services. While another scandal, Issa should not be distracted from pursuing the use of the IRS to attack Obama's political enemies, even as the Treasury Inspector General has explicitly rebutted the Democratic claim that "progressive" groups were also targeted.

June 06, 2013

Pity poor Kathleen Sibelius. Just a short time ago she was to be the face of Barack Obama's signature achievement, bringing inexpensive and comprehensive healthcare to the masses. A well-regarded former Kansas governor and one of the few remaining original cabinet members, she had the plum job - no responsibility for the "going nowhere" economy; no part of the willful reduction in world influence; no need to mislead Congress about political abuses. Just fulfill Obama's promises and all would be well. So, how's that going?

Consider:

- Well, no matter how many times Obama claimed it, few probably expected that costs would go down and nobody would have to change their providers as we covered 30 million more people without appreciably increasing the number of doctors. There are wildly conflicting projections on costs (starting with $1.1 trillion over 10 years) as the full force hits in January - Medicare projected budget costs are decreasing as arbitrary price controls are instituted; insurance rates are increasing modestly for large company programs, but increasing at double or triple digit rates for young individuals or small companies and comparisons are obscured by mixing rates, deductibles, and co-pays. Virtually everyone is confused.

- Implementation will be massively uneven with 26 states choosing to let Sibelius' Department of Health and Human Services run the exchanges set up as clearinghouses for insurance company offerings for individuals and small companies. Many small companies will be dropping coverage and paying fines rather than providing the increased coverage required (mental health and contraception for example) and the increased rates. Many are staying below a 50 employee limit for more onerous provisions by avoiding hiring and making many employees part time.

- Now that Nancy got it passed and we are finally seeing what is in it, there are some 20 new taxes, costing $500 billion over 10 years, including a 3.8% investment income surtax and higher Medicare taxes for high income households; penalties for individuals and companies choosing to not buy mandated coverages; new taxes on insurance companies, drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and charitable hospitals; and myraid restrictions on Health Savings Accounts and medical expense tax deductions. Obama's FY2014 budget increases IRS employment by over 5000 (1650 tagged directly to Obamacare) with a requirement to deal with credits for low income payers, penalties for non-subscribers, and myriad increased code complexities. Sorry, no new doctors.

- In the spirit of 2013 Washington D.C., the Republicans have limited funding for "enrollment outreach", causing Sibelius to actively solicit funds from companies which she will regulate for Enroll America - one of those nasty tax-exempt non-profits that the IRS hates so much. Trust her, the donations won't influence her department's decisions.

From here, the timeframe is what matters. Democrats point wistfully to Social Security and Medicare as massive increases in federal spending and control which were initially opposed by Republicans but now are nearly universally accepted. Republicans point to the 2014 elections with the expectation that the Democrats won't be able to put enough lipstick on the pig to cover even the minimal expectations. Neither side is interested in near term fixes - the Democrats because they fear any changes will lead to a flood; the Republicans because they prefer to let it collapse.

As the folks in Chicago begin to design the Obama presidential library it is obvious that there will be plenty of empty shelves. The wipe out on gun control pretty clearly indicates that the White House's mojo is gone with no Republican support and no Democratic fear of crossing their president. The Benghazi, IRS, and media intimidation scandals will drag on with Jay Carney and Darrell Issa defining the administration. Some credit will be taken for immigration reform which the Republicans need and there will be one or two more Supreme Court justices to get through the Senate, but the public's attention will be increasingly focused on Secretary Sibelius' efforts to make lemonade out of the lemons which we will have at least through 2016.

-----

This week's video is President Obama's announcement of a move intended to bolster the public's confidence in the administration's judgement as it balances between civil liberties and national security.